EPA 910/9-81-011
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Air & Toxics Division
Pesticides Branch
April 1991
Pesticides in Natural Systems
How Can Their Effects Be
Monitored?
Proceedings of the Conference
December 1^h and 12th, 1990
Corvallis, On
-------
Typical Environmental Regulatory Decision Loops
A. Regulatory Decisions
Registration
Etc.
Add to
Base of
Knowledge
Revise Estimate of
I Effects
—___ — — —
I
I
vIso—
- •Mode1s _
1.1
Ambient Use
I
Monitoring I Monitoring
Information
on Known
Environmental
Hazards of the
Regulatory Action
-J
-J
-------
PROCEEDWGS OF TOE CONFERENCE:
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
Organized by the Pesticides Section, Region 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Hosted by the Environmental Research laboratory
Office of Research and Development
at
Corvallis, Oregon
December... 11 and 12.1990
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction •
Report on keynote address by William Cooper . 1
Session 1. Aquatic systems 3
Unimpacted streams as referrents 4
Monitoring the Yakima River Basin 13
Pesticides monitoring using tissue analysis 14
Monitoring pesticides entering estuarine habitats 15
SessIon 2. Theoretical studies 16
Biomonitoring: myth or miracle? 17
Biomonitoring workshop 24
Lichens as biological markers 39
Bees as biomonitors 42
Applying risk assessment to ecological communities 43
Risk assessment workshop 52
Pesticide exposure and impact in wildlife 64
A model for describing community ch inge 65
Discussion papers: 1. Pesticides and rare plants 71
2. Plant community response to herbicides 72
Session 3. TerrestrIal systems 76
Difficulties in a .cigning cause 77
Bioresponse of nontarget organisms: 1. Installation 81
Bioresponse of nontarget organisms: 2. Evaluation 85
Birds and pesticides 91
Effects of pesticides on upland game 92
Session 4. Frameworks for longterm ecological monitoring 98
River basin studies 99
EMAP: relationship to pesticide studies 100
Strategy for a better understanding: Panel 102
List of Registrants (not in the usual sense of EPA!) 104
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED?
-------
i i PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
INTRODUCTION:
Region 10’s Ecological Monitoring Strategy for Pesticides
Many EPA programs utilize
some type of ambient monitoring as
an integral part of their
enviromnental management efforts.
The reasons are intuitively obvious.
The monitoring provides verification
of project specific decisions, and it
provides long term trend
information that is valuable for
reordering priorities and fine tuning
programs. Thus, NPDES permits
and dredge and fill permits often
include ambient monitoring
requirements which are intended to
test assumptions and verify models
that were the basis for the permit’s
issuance. The permit requirements
can then be adjusted, if appropriate,
based on the monitoring results.
Ambient monitoring also has been
valuable in identifying trends that
require program adjustments.
Trends that were detected and are
being monitored in this way include
acid rain and concurrent lake
deterioration, ozone depletion and
global warming, lake eutrophication,
dioxin contamination of surface
water and more. Figure 1 (inside
front cover) depicts the typical
environmental decision process. It
is a closed loop process. The
ambient monitoring closes the
decision loop by evaluating the
initial decision, which then can be
revised if appropriate or, at the
other extreme, used as a model for
similar future situations.
In the Pesticides Program the
process tends to stop at the dashed
lines. It is not a closed loop. Little
effort is made to evaluate the
program decisions. Region 10
believes that it is important to apply
the concept of ambient monitoring
to the pesticide program in the
Pacific Northwest and close the loop
in Figure 1. That is the purpose of
the Ecological Pesticides Monitoring
Strategy.
There are currently about 50,000
registered pesticide products
availabLe in the United States. In
1987, 1.8 biffion pounds of active
ingredients of conventional
pesticides were used in the United
States. That number increases to
2.7 billion pounds if wood
preservatives, disinfectants, and
sulfur are included in the
accounting. By definition, pesticides
are toxic and present a risk to
nontarget organisms and natural
systems, but they are also an
integral part of society, and great
benefits are derived from their use.
Registration of a pesticide for use in
this country depends on a finding by
EPA that its benefits outweigh the
risks it poses to the environment.
To verify this risk/benefit
relationship, FIFRA requires the
submittal of considerable data
before a pesticide can be registered.
This data requirement includes
substantial information pertaining to
the ecological risks. Many aspects
of the ecological risk posed by a
pesticide are understood when the
pesticide is registered. Indeed,
pesticides are not registered if the
apparent risks they pose to the
environment exceed the benefits of
their use. But, if the benefits of the
pesticide are significant, the risks
tolerated can be significant.
It should be kept in mind that
the submitted data are from
controlled studies and may not
actually reflect how pesticides are
used in the real world.
Furthermore, the agency test
requirements for ecological effects
reflect a limited number of species
under a limited number of
conditions. So even though
considerable ecological data are
analyzed before registering a
pesticide, the decision is associated
with a great deal of uncertainty.
This uncertainty in conjunction with
the huge quantities of toxic
pesticides used makes it essential
that the loop in Figure 1 be closed.
That is, collect the information
necessary to determine the
consequences of those risk benefit
decisions, to determine if the
risk/benefit analyses are accurate,
and to ensure the ecological
hazards are understood.
We know enough about
ecology, the science, to know that
we don’t fully understand the many
ways that pesticides could affect
natural systems. Basically we know
that everything effects everything
else. This uncertainty regarding the
ecological affects of pesticide use is
perhaps, the major reason that
pesticides consistently rank in the
highest risk category in comparative
risk evaluations.
The EPA has, during the past 5
years, conducted a number of
comparative risk evaluations. At
EPA Headquarters, a task force
compared the relative risks posed
by environmental problems faced by
the agency. In their 1987 report,
“Unfmished Business’, pesticides
were ranked with the highest risks
to natural environments .
In 1987, Region 10 conducted
its own comparative risk evaluation,
focussing on problems peculiar to
the region. Again, pesticides were
ranked in the highest risk category
both for human health and for
natural environments .
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
‘U
-------
INTRODUCTION
In 1989 EPA’s Administrator,
William Reilly, asked EPA’s Science
Advisory Board to review the
“Unfinished Business” report. The
Board’s Relative Risk Reduction
Strategies Committee made ten
recommendations. The first three of
these follow:
1. EPA should target its
environmental protection
efforts on the basis of
opportunities for the greatest
risk reduction.
2. EPA should attach as much
importance to reducing
ecological risk as it does to
reducing human health risk.
3. EPA should improve the
data and analytical
methodologies that support the
assessment, comparison, and
reduction of different
environmental risks.
The SAB Committee
recognized habitat alteration, loss of
biological diversity, and change in
community structure among the
highest ecological risks. Pesticide
contamination of natural systems
can accentuate all of these risks.
Pesticides routinely rank high
in these evaluations because the use
pesticidal use really poses the
ecological risk suggested by these
analyses. An advisory group has
been formed including persons
currently involved in monitoring
activities or who are in laboratories
of pesticides is so great and our
knowledge of their affects is so
small. Region 10’s Ecological
Pesticides Strategy will address that
concern. It will start the process to
collect information to determine if
capable of carrying out biological or
chemical monitoring. This group
will be asked to develop a model of
a monitoring system which can
detect ecological effects of
pesticides.
The strategy addresses the three
recommendations of the SAB
committee given above. It seeks to
improve data collection and
analytical methodologies, it
emphasizes ecological risk, and it
seeks to acquire data to allow
identification of the best risk
reduction opportunities.
The question is asked, “What will
this information be used for?” It
won’t be adequate for enforcement
cases. It may reveal reductions in
natural populations of some species.
But, in most cases, the registration
process predicts those kinds of
impacts. So, what do these costly
monitoring programs add?
They can monitor the health of
the natural environment as it is
affected by pesticide use. They can
verify that the predicted impacts are
the only impacts. They can address
the questions of cumulative impacts
and synergistic effects. This
information could then be used to
cancel the use of pesticides as
appropriate; support the use of
pesticides as appropriate; prioritize
research into alternatives to
chemical pesticides; identify needed
changes to agency policies,
procedures, and regulations; and
influence the development of new
legislation.
To summarize, the problem this
strategy is intended to address is
the lack of long term environmental
trend monitoring which can
measure the effects of the continual
intensive use of pesticides.
The pesticide monitoring
conference in Corvallis was the
most significant step so far in
implementation of the Ecological
Monitoring Strategy. It brought
together many of the people who
have made significant contributions
to ecological monitoring in the
Region, and began the process of
crystallizing the concerns, and the
technical problems, which will drive
the effort to devise a workable plan.
This volume contains many of the
technical reports, and also the free-
form discussions which took place
at the meeting.
Richard Parkin, Chief
Pesticides Section, Region 10
US EPA
Iv
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The conference on monitoring for the effects of pesticides in natural systems• took place because of a most
unusual response by all participants - voluntary support based on a desire to share information about this
relatively unexplored topic. All of the speakers gave extensively of their time to prepare their talks, with two
months or less lead time. The number of people attending was remarkable, also. About 40 participants were
expected, but 100 actually registered. The keynote speaker, William Cooper, took time from his busy schedule to
give two lectures and then lead the workshop on risk assessment. He got up at 4 AM to catch a plane to his next
engagement. Walt Thies arranged for two presentations and led a field trip. Anne Fairbrother, of the
Environmental Research Laboratory at Corvallis, volunteered to host the conference, arranged for the excellent
facthties at the LaSelles Conference Center of the University of Oregon and for an audio technician to tape the
proceedings, without which this volume would have been impossible. Anne even saw that coffee was available!
Then at the last minute she was asked to chair a session. Dan McKenzie, who took part as a speaker and as
chair of the longest session, supported the conference and the Strategic Plan of which it was a part in numerous
ways.
Many people who did not attend the conference contributed to its success, and to our ability to address the
task of assessing the importance of pesticides and their residues in the natural environment. These include my
fellow workers, who provided much informal training and guidance, and who suggested numerous resources to
me. Over 200 people in universities, government agencies, environmental action organizations and private
business answered telephone inquiries or met with us graciously and helpfully, making it possible to identify
people actually working in the field.
A part of the strategic plan of which this conference was a part is the building of a database on monitoring
activities in the Northwest. Special thanks are due to all of those who responded to the request for information
for this database, which was signed by Karl Arne of this agency and by Alan Chartrand for the contractor, Dames
and Moore.
This conference, and the initiative of which it is part, happened because of a real interest, on the part of
individuals in EPA’s Region 10 and at the Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, in carrying their
responsibility to protect the environment beyond a reactive position, to anticipate problems before they occur.
This level of responsibility is essential to the health of our nation in the broadest sense. To the staff and
managers of Region 10, and in particular to my boss Rick Parkin, Chief, Pesticides Section, who spent many
hours conceiving the initiative and promoting its fruition, I add my personal thanks.
Michael Marsh
Editor
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED? V
-------
vi PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Dickeybirds and Dollars
Keynote Address by William Cooper
The Science Advisory Board
was asked to review and amplify
EPA’s 1986 document, Unfinished
Business. Three subcommittees
were formed, one on Human
Health, one on Ecology and
Welfare, which Cooper chaired,
and one to establish Strategic
Options. The first two committees
were asked to rank the risks that
they were to consider.
The human health group
considered the risks from
pesticides in two categories, direct
and indirect, and they decided that
only those directly affected
(applicators and other persons who
handle pesticides regularly in their
occupations) were at highest risk
while effects on consumers were
less serious.
Cooper’s subcommittee was
charged with dealing with risks not
only from an ecological, but also
from an economic standpoint (the
“welfare” charge). In “Unfmished
Business”, the analysis of risks was
performed from the standpoint of
the various offices or regulatory
subdivisions in the Enviromental
Protection Agency. The SAB
subcommittee decided that this
approach was inconsistent in that
it mixed sources (e. g., pesticides),
receptors (e. g., indoor air), media
(e. g., non-point source
discharges), and specific regulatory
obligations as environmental
problems. An alternative ranking
approach was adopted, using
environmental stressors (physical,
chemical, thermal, etc.,), and
identifying the receptors that they
are expected to affect, and then
building a matrix of the anticipated
severity of consequences on the
basis of how extensive the effects
would be in area and severity, and
how long it is expected that the
community would take to recover.
The rate at which natural
processes occur affects the
distribution and speed of effects,
as well as recovery. Thus, air
masses can move quickly and over
long distances, while groundwater
moves very slowly. In
consequence, a welfare based
analysis puts groundwater
contamination in a lower risk
category than air pollution.
To establish relative severity,
indicators of effect are needed,
and the conclusions reached
depend heavily on these. Species
diversity has not been found to be
a very sensitive indicator.
Structural and functional shifts in
the ecosystem are much more
important. Species loss is
regarded as profoundly important,
since recovery would take place on
a time scale of millenia in many
cases.
It is valuable to identify
precursors to the social endpoint,
so that corrective measures can be
taken early.
The necessity to include welfare
(human social and economic
benefits) in the analysis
complicates the ranking greatly.
For example, salmon in the great
lakes seem to thrive in an
environment contaminated by
PCB’s, while their flesh is so
heavily contaminated with the
chemical as to be considered unfit
for human consumption.
This analysis provided the basis
for a ranking of severity of risk
from each stressor on the basis of
scale of the effect (local, regional
or global). Pesticides were ranked
high at the local, or ecosystem
level, and of medium importance
at the regional level. The three
stressors ranking highest on global,
regional and local scales were
global climate, stratospheric ozone
and habitat alteration.
[ Note: A transcript of Dr. Cooper’s talk was not available, and the sound recording equipment was not
functioning at the time he gave his presentation. The following, based on notes taken at the conference,
summarizes the major points that he made. Ed.]
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
1
-------
2 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Session I. Aquatic Systems Rick Parkin, Chair
A. Fresh-water Systems
Ground and Surface Water Studies for Pesticides in Oregon
Greg Pettitt
Department of Environmental Quality
(abstract not submitted)
Unimpacted streams as Referrents
in
Ecoregion I3ioassessment
R.W. Plotnikoff
Washington Department of Ecology
(article)
Department of Interior agricultural drain water programs
Carol Schuler
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(abstract not submitted)
Monitoring the Yakima River Basin
Stuart McKenzie
U.S. Geological Survey
(abstract)
B. Salt-water and Estuarine Systems
A Strategy for Monitoring Contemporary Pesticides
Entering Estuarine Habitats
Michael Rylko
EPA 10th Region, Office of Coastal Waters
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED? 3
-------
Unimpacted streams as Referrents
in
Ecoregion Bioassessment
R.W. Plotnikoff
WA Department of Ecology
Surface Water Investigations Section
Olympia, WA 98504
ABSTRACT
The Ecoregion Bioassessment Pilot Project was funded by the Timber/Fish/Wildlife (T/F/W) program
for the purpose of defining characteristic surface water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
forested areas of Washington. The ecoregion concept was used as a regional approach for locating replicate
sites and as units within which to identify unique chemical, physica4 and biological characteristics. Surface
water quality was defined through monthly monitoring while benthic macroinvertebrate communities were
characterized by quarterly monitoring. Six sites were chosen within each of three ecoregions, the Puget
Lowlan4, Cascades, and Columbia Basin. Criteria for site selection were developed to identify the final
eighteen monitoring sites from a total of fifty-one candidate sites. Assistance in candidate site identification
was obtained from the T/F,4 V-Ambient Monitoring Program, US Geological Survey, and the US Forest
Service. The final monitoring sites chosen for the project were reflective of physical characteristics typical of
streams within each ecoregion.
INTRODUCTION
Protection of aquatic life is a
common designated beneficial use
of aquatic resources and is a
primary reason for maintaining a
high degree of water quality.
Historically, chemical analyses of
water column samples have been
the primary means of assessing
aquatic conditions, however this
has not been adequate in many
cases. Techniques to assess the
biological community can be better
measures of overall conditions.
The premise behind using
bioassessment as a management
tool is that a more realistic overall
view of aquatic conditions may be
obtained through the evaluation of
living organisms. Bioassessment
has experienced an increasing
popularity with a number of states
and is endorsed by the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency (1989). Its present use in
Washington state has been limited
by a lack of regional biological
information.
Bioassessment can be
conducted with a variety of aquatic
organisms, but the use of benthic
macroinvertebrates is a more
attractive approach initially. These
organisms integrate water quality
conditions over time and space
and thus indicate the overall
stream health. A combination of
biological and water quality
information better describes and
enhances the knowledge of
dynamic instream processes.
The bioassessment effort was a
proposed pilot project to evaluate
the efficacy of its use in
Washington. This pilot project
was based on the concept of
ecoregion bioassessment (Whittier
et al., 1987) and would establish a
protocol for continued use.
Biological information pertaining
to unimpacted aquatic systems is
collected to describe achievable
water quality. Following initial
investigation, bioassessment would
best be used for long term trend
monitoring and in site specific
surveys.
Establishment of a
bioassessment program requires
the identification of the nominal
condition of aquatic life in an
ecoregion (Odum et a!., 1979).
This defines a “reference”
condition that will enable
comparisons within an ecoregion
and between other ecoregion
drainages. An assessment could
be made regarding the health of a
site and is indicated through
macroinvertebrate community
metrics, habitat assessments, land
use assessments and identification
of probable point- or nonpoint
pollution sources. Potential
community metrics that would be
effective in delineating stress
would be functional groups,
community similarity, and species
abundance. Reference conditions
in each ecoregion may be better
described by using a unique set of
descriptors. These descriptors
may be identified through rigorous
analysis of existing biological and
water quality data sets.
4
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
t’lOLflIKOI
The Ecoregion Concept
Ecoreglon Delineation:
1. Land-Surface Form
2. Land Use
3. Soils
4. Potential Natural Vegetation
(Omernik and Gallant 1986)
Figure 1. Delineation of ecoregions in Washington state.
Willam
Valley
5
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
-------
UNIMPACTED STREAMS AS REFERRENTh
The Ecoregion Concept
An ecoregion is a working
geographical unit in which certain
features of the landscape show a
strong degree of internal
homogeneity when compared with
other regions. Omernik (1987)
defined ‘ecoregions” in the
conterminous United States based
on such features as: land surface
form, potential natural vegetation,
land use, and soil composition
(Figure 1). These features
influence many of the drainages,
chemically and physically, in the
same manner throughout a given
ecoregion. Of course, there exist
overlapping boundaries between
ecoregions where the features of
each blend together. Omernik and
Gallant (1986) identified “generally
typical” and “most typical”
ecoregional areas for the Pacific
Northwest. The generally typical
areas are normally found near
ecoregion boundaries. It is not
uncommon to find drastic changes
between ecoregions where most
typical areas begin close to a
boundary. This situation holds
true for many of the northwest’s
ecoregions. Sharp ecoregional
boundary definitions among all the
regions do not exist, nor should
aquatic communities be expected
to drastically change at ecoregion
boundaries.
Bioassessment as a Management
Tool
Critics of the bioassessment
concept often note the complexity
and biological variance found in
large, regional data sets. This
project began by using ecoregions
as the initial spatial unit in which
replicate sites were located. More
than one ecoregion may harbor
similar macroinvertebrate
populations; in this instance, these
may be considered as a single
region for purposes of
biomonitoring (Hafele pers.
comm.). It should be noted that
further development of
classification schemes following the
ecoregion concept are necessary to
achieve continuity between sites in
similar regions.
Once a spatial classification
scheme is established,
consideration may be given to
defining the influence of pollution
sources. Nonpoint sources of
pollution are a major concern in
maintaining the quality of water
resources. NPS pollution usually
accumulates slowly over time in a
watershed and alters habitat
characteristics within the aquatic
environment. Water quality
monitoring does not always
identify NPS pollution in the early
stages of impact, but aquatic
organism tolerance can serve as an
early indicator. Benthic
macroinvertebrates are dependent
on habitat quality (Minshall 1984),
which makes them especially well
suited for NPS pollution
assessment.
Bioassessment Effort in the State
of Washington
A pilot bioassessment network
in Washington was established to
ultimately supplement conventional
surface water quality information
and provide greater resolution to
existing state criteria that protect
water resources and their
beneficial uses. Development and
use of multivariate statistical
analyses and a better
understanding of ecosystem
structure and function have
accelerated the use of
bioassessment in a regulatory
sense. The regional approach in a
bioássessment program provides a
systematic framework in
addressing the biological
component of point and nonpoint
source aquatic pollution problems.
A biomonitoring network
covering some of Washington’s key
drainages is a valuable tool used to
evaluate the long term goal of
preservation and improvement of
existing water quality.
Coordination with other agencies
in the northwest such as the
United States Geological Survey
(USGS), adherents to the
Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW)
agreement, and local and tribal
governments benefit through
expansion of available
environmental information.
Bioassessment is an additional tool
by which nonpoint pollution
assessments from agricultural and
forest activities can be made.
Bioassessment programs using
benthic macroinvertebrates in
urban watersheds as is done by the
Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO) are an
important contribution to the
monitoring database. METRO’s
efforts may be used in defining the
macroinvertebrate structure of the
urban setting within an ecoregion.
This represents a fmer resolution
in classification of impact in an
ecoregion. Satellite projects
should be identified to facilitate
coordination in early efforts of the
bioassessment process to create an
efficient program and provide
information in a shorter time
period.
Phase I-Project Development
Washington State includes an
extreme range of conditions within
the eight ecoregion types
(Cascades to Columbia Basin).
This makes individual ecoregion
bioassessment a potentially
effective tool by nature of unique
indicator taxa associations.
Bioassessment has initially been
implemented in three of the eight
ecoregions in Washington (Figure
2). The ecoregions in which
sampling has taken place are: the
Puget Lowland (Region 2),
Cascades (Region 4), and
Columbia Basin (Region 10) based
on their extreme differences in
character (Omernik and Gallant,
1986). Two of the ecoregions
6
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Plotnikof
Figure 2. Ecoregions of Washington that were surveyed in the
bioassessment pilot project (After Omernik 1987).
selected for this pilot project
typically contain forested lands
(Cascades, Puget Lowlands). The
third ecoregion (Columbia Basin)
is predominantly covered by
sagebrush and grass populations
with forested areas located on the
fringes. The Columbia Basin
ecoregion offers a contrast in this
pilot project that tested the
efficacy of bioassessment for
drawing distinctions among
regions. Obvious differences exist
between the Columbia Basin and
the Cascades/Puget Lowland
ecoregions. This difference served
in testing the hypothesis that
benthic macroinvertebrate
communities can be discerned on a
large scale “ecoregional” basis.
The Columbia Basin is an
ecoregion that may be subject to
evaluation for division into
subregions. Two distinct
vegetational types exist within this
region; forested boundaries and a
sagebrush/wheatgrass steppe
interior. Some ecoregions may
better be described on a
subregional basis where patches of
distinct spatial homogeneity exist
within the overall region (Gallant
ci al., 1989).
The intended use of ecoregion
bioassessment as a monitoring tool
is that its development will be used
to address questions regarding the
health of biological communities in
similar sized streams during one of
the four seasons in a calendar
year. Ideally, biocriteria should be
developed for each ecoregion in
which a reference condition is
defined and against which
comparisons could be made with
biological information from other
similar streams. Disturbed stream
reaches associated with forest
practices or agriculture are
identified through biological
community descriptors that do not
correspond with the reference
condition range.
The objectives for Phase I of
the Ecoregion Bioassessment pilot
project were as follows:
1. Characterize the benthic
macroinvertebrate
community in generally
unimpacted third and fourth
order streams of three
ecoregions in Washington
State (Puget Lowland,
Cascades, Columbia Basin).
A community reference
condition is defined in each
of the ecoregions through
analysis of information
collected at sample sites
within an ecoregion.
2. Define the benthic
macroinvertebrate reference
condition in each season by
sampling during optimal
segments of time that relay
maximal information about
the community.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
7
-------
UNIMPACTED STREAMS AS REFERRENTS
3. Develop a general methods
protocol that will be
appropriate in applying to
ecoregion bioassessment
surveys.
METHODS
This pilot project addressed
habitat characteristics, benthic
macroinvertebrate communities,
and surface water quality. Habitat
characteristics at each site
reflected uniformity within a
particular ecoregion in order to
optimize characterization of a
reference benthic
macroinvertebrate community
condition. Physical habitat
characteristics may have
substantial influences on the
distribution of benthic
macroinvertebrates (Vannote et al.,
1980). The water quality
information was used as a subset
of the environmental information
collected at each site and was
integrated with the benthic
macroinvertebrate community
inform ation.
Habitat Survey
Site Determination
Sampling efforts were
concentrated in undeveloped and
least impacted reaches of streams
within an ecoregion as was done
with the Ohio Stream
Regionalization Project (Whittier
et a!., 1987). The undeveloped and
unimpacted stream reaches were
typically the low stress segments of
a drainage. The hypothesis was
that benthic macroinvertebrate
assemblages within an ecoregion
were expected to contain similar
distributions in drainages with
similar habitat types. Monitoring
sites were chosen to maximize a
situation in which assessment
sensitivity was maintained and
generalization of information to
other streams and stream
segments was possible.
Site selection was evaluated by
conforming to a set of criteria.
These criteria were extracts from a
variety of ecoregional
investigations and have been
identified as effective components
in evaluating habitat for site
selection. Watershed size and
mean annual discharge per unit
drainage area have been used as
primary descriptors for locating
sites (Whittier ci a!., 1987). The
watershed size is based on those
most representative of an
ecoregion. Mean annual discharge
per unit area defines a
standardized quantity of water
contained by the drainage. A
method for watershed ranking has
been evaluated whereby land use
types are ranked according to
severity of potential impact in a
receiving stream (Whittier ci at.,
1987). The rank assigned to a
land use is multiplied by percent
land use throughout the watershed
in order to standardize the
expression within a watershed.
This method further identifies
uniformity among selected
reference sites within an
ecoregion. The pilot project used
unimpacted reference sites. Aerial
photographs assisted in identifying
existing development, land use,
vegetational, and topographic
patterns in a drainage.
Site selection for the Ecoregion
Bioassessment Pilot Project was a
systematic process where a
“criteria filter” was developed. The
criteria filter used available
physical habitat information from
sources actively collecting data
throughout the state of
Washington. Habitat evaluation
was ongoing within the United
States Forest Service (USFS)
(USFS, 1990) boundaries, United
States Geological Survey (USGS),
and the Timber/Fish/Wildlife
Ambient Monitoring Program
(T/F/W-AMP) (Ralph, 1990).
The following lists describe
criteria for identifying “candidate”
sites and then ‘final” site selection.
Continuity among the sites
regarding physical characteristics
was sought by progressing through
the criteria filter.
Candidate Site Criteria :
1. available habitat information
existed for the site
2. the drainage was entirely
within the ecoregion
3. the drainage was within the
“most typical” area of the
ecoregion
4. the site was relatively
undisturbed
5. the stream was third or
fourth order
6. the stream reach was
forested
Final Site Criteria :
1. elevation
2. gradient
3, substrate size
4. discharge
5. longitudinal site distribution
Approximately fifty-one sites were
identified by satisfying the
candidate site criteria throughout
the three ecoregions of interest.
Existing habitat information was
gathered for each site from the
three sources previously
mentioned. It was possible to
obtain information for the
candidate site criteria by using
USGS topographic maps and the
diagram outlining Ecoregions of
8
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Plotnikof
Monitoring Site Locations
• Puget Low/and
Columbia Basin
A Cascades
Figure 3. Final site selections for the bioassessment project.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED?
9
-------
UNIMPACTEI) STREAMS AS REFERRENTS
the Pacific Northwest (Omernik
and Gallant, 1986), Confirmation
of relatively unimpacted streams
was accomplished by contacting
representatives of the USFS,
USGS, and the T/F/W-AMP.
Final site selection required the
use of site specific habitat
information, where available. If
specific information was not
available for one or more of the
final site criteria, an evaluation
was performed through an on-site
survey. Final monitoring site
locations for this project are
displayed in Figure 3.
Habitat Evaluation
On-site surveys included
observations of physical features at
and upstream of the stations.
Evaluation was completed using
methods developed by the ambient
monitoring project (Ralph, 1990)
efforts under the T/F/W
agreement and the Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBP)
(Plafkin ci a!. 1989). The RBP
method included information
regarding: riparian corridor
assessment using streamside
vegetation, canopy, bank stability,
and the presence of buffer zones
between the stream and existing
land use; instream assessment used
substrate composition, water
velocity, channel cross-section
definition, and cobble
embeddedness.
The T/F/W method and RBP
method for habitat evaluation each
supplemented the other and
provided a comprehensive
evaluation of physical
measurements for both aquatic
and terrestrial features. Riffle and
run reaches were sampled at all
sites in order to maximize the
coverage of benthic habitat types
(Minshall, 1984). An attempt was
made to maintain uniformity of
riparian and stream features
among sites in the same ecoregion.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Monitoring
Three ecoregions were chosen
to implement the biomonitoring
project. Six streams selected for
habitat characterization in each
ecoregion were surveyed for
benthic macroinvertebrates.
Samples were collected quarterly
to obtain seasonal information
regarding benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages.
Benthic macroinvertebrate
populations undergo life cycle
changes which influence the
presence and absence of
populations during different
portions of a year. In this case,
the reference condition would be
unique for each season.
Disturbance frequencies such as
spates, flood, and drought contain
unique seasonal patterns in regions
of the state. Disturbance
frequency is a major determinant
of community structure and
functional representation.
The Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBP) for benthic
macroinvertebrate surveys
developed by Plafkin ci a!. (1989)
include three levels of complexity.
RBP III is the most labor intensive
and thorough and was used in this
project. The taxonomic level of
identification in RBP III is genus
or species, which allowed further
discrimination of indicator taxa in
each ecoregion. RBP II may also
be evaluated during a project to
determine whether it is adequate
for discrimination of ecoregions.
Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data
Analysis of the benthic
macroinvertebrate data evaluated
the use of a number of statistical
techniques that either defined
underlying population patterns or
were descriptive. Three
multivariate statistical techniques
were implemented in order to
determine benthic
macroinvertebrate populations that
served as indicator taxa and the
habitat and water quality
characteristics that influenced
population distributions in each
ecoregion. Detrended
Correspondence Analysis and
Principal Components Analysis are
useful statistical techniques in
integrating abundance data sets
with data sets containing
environmental variables. This
approach associates unique benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages
with environmental variables that
influence their distribution.
Identification of unique taxa within
each ecoregion was accomplished
by using TWINSPAN (Two-Way
Indicator Species Analysis) (Hill,
1979); a component of the Cornell
Ecology Programs series.
Other techniques that are useful
in characterizing the ecoregions
are biotic indices. One such
method developed for the U.S.
Forest Service is the Biotic
Condition Index (BCI) (Winget
and Mangum 1979). BCI and
other indices were evaluated on an
ecoregional basis as potential
descriptors of benthic
macroinvertebrate community
characterization.
Box plots of the taxonomic and
community descriptors (e.g.
diversity) were constructed to
graphically illustrate differences in
community composition among the
ecoregions. This approach was
similar to that performed in Ohio
(Whittier ci a!., 1987) and Oregon
(Whittier et a!. 1988). The box
plots are an efficient exploratory
tool in directing analytical efforts
of the benthic macroinvertebrate
data.
10
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Plotnikof
Water Quality
Water Quality Monitoring
Water samples were collected
on a monthly basis at all sites in
each ecoregion. Concurrent
surface water samples were
collected with benthic
macroinvertebrate samples and
thorough water quality analyses
were conducted in three general
categories: 1) physical/chemical, 2)
nutrients, and 3) ionic strength.
The physical/chemical attributes
included dissolved oxygen, pH,
turbidity, conductivity and
temperature. Nutrients of interest
were nitrate + nitrite nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, and total organic
carbon. Ortho-phosphate was
collected on dates corresponding
with the benthic macroinvertebrate
sample times. Ionic strength was
described by alkalinity, calcium,
and magnesium concentrations.
Analysis of Water Quality Data
Principal component analysis
(PCA) was used to determine:
1) the natural grouping of sample
sites, and
2) the water quality variables
contributing to seasonal
differences among the sites.
PCA explains the variance-
covariance structure of a water
quality matrix by composition of
linear combinations of original
variables (Johnson and Wichern
1988). Determination of those
environmental factor(s) that
accounted for variance in the data
matrix reveal information
regarding sources of influence.
The focus of PCA was to delineate
variation in water quality among
sites and identify significant
characteristic ecoregional
differences. PCA was used by
Whittier ci a!. (1988) in Oregon
and found to be an effective tool
in describing the water quality
characteristics in ecoregions.
Quality Assurance/Quality
ControL Procedures
Replication of samples
collected in the field and of
analyses carried out in the
laboratory are integral components
of a quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) program.
Replicate samples of benthic
macroinvertebrates were collected
at each site for determination of
sample variation. A cross-check of
taxonomic identification was
carried out quarterly by an
experienced benthic
macroinvertebrate biologist.
Replication of water quality
samples occurred at ten percent of
the total number of sites. Habitat
assessments were replicated by a
second investigator at one site
during each quarterly sampling.
Interpretation of results for
water quality and benthic
macroinvertebrate indicator
assemblages were compared to
information compiled in Oregon.
Two of the ecoregions used in this
study (Cascades and Columbia
Basin) overlapped with sites
located in Oregon and thus
provided an excellent opportunity
for coordination and data
comparison. The assumption was
that site selection criteria and
macroinvertebrate collection
techniques were comparable
between the two states’ efforts. In
the case of ecoregional overlap of
political boundaries, cooperative
monitoring efforts between states
could be proposed for efficiency of
information collection and lowered
operational costs. Future
composition of available
ecoregional data would enhance
the use of bioassessment as an
environmental management tool.
Future Effort and Development
In order to fully develop the
ecoregion bioassessment program
a second phase of this project is
envisioned. Following the
establishment of a methods
protocol for bioassessment, the
next activity would involve
surveying impacted sites within the
three ecoregions (Puget Lowland,
Cascades, Columbia Basin). In
addition, the ecoregion sample
sites established in the pilot
project would continue to be
monitored. Comparison between
the impacted and unimpacted sites
within an ecoregion would be
made to assist in developing
biocriteria (Figure 4). The
biocriteria will reflect the expected
biotic potential of an ecoregion
Phase II - Proposed Continuation
Figure 4. Phase 2: process in
development of biocriteria.
and provide an early indication of
stress in streams that are surveyed
for benthic macroinvertebrates.
SUMMARY
The scope of this bioassessment
effort was narrowed to initially
identify impacts to aquatic systems
resulting from forest practices.
The incorporation of biological
monitoring with physical and
chemical water quality
measurements will provide a
comprehensive view of timber
harvest impacts. Ecoregion
bioassessment is a promising
Blocriteria
Development
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
11
-------
UNIMPACTED STREAMS AS REFERRENTS
monitoring technique based on
results from efforts in other states.
Information acquired regarding the
status of the benthic macro-
invertebrate community, water
quality and related habitat can be
utilized in both routine ambient
and intensive investigations and
uniquely analyzed to provide a
direction in management decisions.
These decisions would be based on
the destruction of habitat as
indicated by indigenous benthic
macroinvertebrates and water
quality that modifies the benthic
habitat. Ecoregions are a
convenient geographical unit in
which to examine characteristic
drainages.
Bioassessment is the next step
in constructing a more effective
monitoring program of aquatic
environments in Washington and is
of interest to adjacent states. The
pilot project for ecoregion bio-
assessment addresses the missing
monitoring component of surface
water investigations presently
conducted in this state. This
additional step in our effort to
preserve and enhance our
freshwater resources will be
reflected in better management
decisions and fewer problems
requiring long-term reclamation of
impacted aquatic systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Timber/Fish/Wildlife
Program funded this project for
the purposes of better defining
forest harvest impacts on aquatic
life. T/F/W has demonstrated
foresight in a variety of funded
projects which will enable a better
understanding of forest practice
impacts and also encourage
enhancement of existing natural
forest resources.
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Protection Agency.
1987. Report of the National
Workshop on Instream Biological
Monitoring and Criteria. U.S.
EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards. Washington, D.C.
34 p.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P.
Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R.M.
Hughes. 1989. Regionalization as
a Tool for Managing Environ-
mental Resources. U.S. EPA Doc.
EPA/600/3-89/060. 152 p.
Gauch, H.G., Jr. 1982.
Multivariate Analysis in
Community Ecology. Cambridge
University Press, London. 298 p.
Hafele, R. 1989. Personal
communication. Oregon Dept. of
Environmental Quality, Water
Quality Monitoring Section.
Portland, OR.
Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN--A
FORTRAN program for arranging
multivariate data in an ordered
two-way table by classification of
the individuals and attributes.
Section of Ecology and
Systematics, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY. 90 p.
Johnson, R.A. and D.W. Wicheru.
1988. Applied Multivariate
Statistical Analysis, 2nd ed.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey. 607 p.
Minshall, G.W. 1984. Aquatic
Insect-Substratum Relationships.
in The Ecology of Aquatic Insects,
V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenberg
(eds.). Praeger Publishers, New
York. 625 p.
Odum, E.F., J.T. Finn, and E.H.
Franz. 1979. Perturbation theory
and the subsidy-stress gradient.
Bioscience 29(6): 349-352.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions
of the conterminous United States.
Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77(1):
118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant.
1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific
Northwest. U.S. EPA Doc.
EPA/600/3-86J033. 39 p.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D.
Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M.
Hughes. 1989. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for use in
streams and rivers: benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.
EPA Doc. EPA/444/4-89-0O1.
Ralph, S.C. 1990.
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Stream
Ambient Monitoring Field
Manual, Version 2.0. Center for
Streamside Studies, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. TFW-
16E-90-004. 73 p.
United States Forest Service.
1990. Stream Inventory Hand-
book, Region 6-Version 4.0. 24 p.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall,
K.W.Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and
C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 37: 130-137.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and
D.P. Larsen. 1988. Corres-
pondence between ecoregions and
spatial patterns in stream
ecosystems in Oregon. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 45: 1264-1278.
Whittier, T.R., D.P. Larsen, and
R.M. Hughes. 1987. The Ohio
stream regionalization project: a
compendium of results. U.S. EPA
Dot. EPA/600/3-87/025.
Winget, R.N. and F.A. Mangum.
1979. Aquatic Ecosystem
Inventory, Biotic Condition Index:
Integrated Biological, Physical, and
Chemical Stream Parameters for
Management. U.S. Forest Service,
Intermountain Region. 51 p.
12
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Monitoring the Yakima River Basin
Questions for Stuart McKenzie
0. To what extent are you looking at currently used
pesticides vs. historically used ones?
A. We started by going to the county agents in each
of 3 counties and asked them for a list of all the
pesticides currently being used. List amounted to
60 or 70 major ones. Then we sat down with the
handbooks of organic chemistry and handbooks of
agricultural chemicals and looked to see which
ones were toxic, which were persistent in the
environment, and finally, with an analyst, which
ones can you find with the available methods.
You ahnost have to pre-select which ones you are
going to go after in order to have quality control
at the analytical end. It’s fine to say, “we are
going to look for everything.”, but for the analyst,
that’s a major problem.
0. Were you only looking for the parent compounds?
A. No, we were looking for the breakdown products
as well. But for the analyst, that’s a major
problem. He can’t identify those breakdown
products as well. You run into that with the
triazines. And also, we are just getting the
capability of a low enough detection level so that
we can sort out what’s there and what’s not there.
We have some new research techniques that we
are trying out, that I will show you later.
0. What would you say if you were hazarding a guess
as to the source of the DDT. [ Elevated levels
were reported compared to other sites in the
nation.1
A. Four or five hypotheses: One of the slides shows
that in the Yakima Basin about 40% of the DDT
plus metabolites of DDT is still DDT. Across the
nation, it’s 10% to 30%. So, why is there so much
DDT in the Yakima Basin? One hypothesis is: in
the arid dry climate over the Yakima, it just
doesn’t break down as fast. Second, there is so
much that it is inhibiting the organisms that break
it down from acting. A third, that they are still
using DDT. A fourth, that the instrumentation,
because of contamination with DDT (an analytical
chemist told me this) through use, gives incorrect,
abnormally low readings in the other sites across
the country, so that ours is a more correct data
set. Frankly, I can’t separate out which of those
are correct. I tend to think that arid climate and
analytical problems are the major component.
0. Can global transport be a part of it?
A. It could be, but I don’t think so because we went
to an area where, if it was global transport it
should have showed up, high in the Cascades, and
we didn’t find it. It’s interesting, however, that
when we looked at it in fish from that
environment, we did fmd it above the limit of
detection, so it is still there.
Stuart McKenzie
U.S. Geological Survey
ABSTRACT
In 1984 the U.S. Geological Survey began the NAWQA (National Water-Quality Assessment) Program
to describe the status and trends in the quality of the Nation’s ground- and surface-water resources and to
provide a sound understanding of the natural and human fators that affect the quality of these resources.
The pilot study in the Yakima River Basin, Washington is one of the four surface-water proj ects initiated in
1986.
The objectives of this pilot study are to use existing data and iteratively add new data to (1) describe
spatial and temporal changes in water-quality conditions; and (2) relate observed water-quality conditions to
sources and causes, transport, fate, and where possible, to effects from contaminants.
Bioassessments are being conducted to increase our understanding of relations between biota and water
chemistry. Specific objectives of the bioassessrnents include (1) quantifying populations of algae, benthic
invertebrates, and fish; (2) determining the presence or absence of toxic compounds in biota as indicators of
water-quality conditions; and (3) quantitatively describing habitat as a basis for measuring and evaluating
long-term changes.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
13
-------
Strategy for Pesticide Monitoring
in the Vakinia River Basin
Using Tissue Analysis
Dr. J. Kent Crawford
U.S. Geological Survey
ABSTRACT’
Tissue analysis will be used in the National Water Quality Assessment (NA WQA) Program primarily to
document the occu ,’rence, distrIbution, and trends of pesticides in tissues in study units (river basins).
Target compounds are those that strongly concentrate in biological tissues, but that are not readily
metabolized. These include 46 compounds having bioconcentration factors greater than 300 and which are
known to be toxic. Taiget organisms are those which are widespread in the study unit and are expected to
be readily found in many other basins across the nation. The Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea, is the
primary target organism.
In the pilot NA WQA study for the Yakima Riper basin, 22 pesticides from the target list of 46 pesticides,
were analyzed for in tissue samples of fish, mollusks, and plants collected in 1989. Twelve different
organochiorine compounds were detected in the samples. DD T or its breakdown products were detected in
samples from each of the 19 sites sampled. Die idrin was detected in samples from IS of the 19 sampling
sites. Dicofo( was detected in tissue samples from eight swnpling locations. (‘hiordane and
trans-nonachior were detected at six locations. Thxaphene was detected at four sUes and PCB ‘ r were
detected in tissues from three sites. The inarimum concentrations were from agricultural drains entering the
Yakima River. In general, sites farther downstream on (he main stem of the River had greater
concentrations than upstream sites on the main stem. Samples from headwater reference sites had the
lowest concentrations.
The analysis of pesticides in tissues, water, and sediments, provides multiple lines of evidence for
evaluating the status of a water body. Therefore, tissue analysis should be considered as part of any
water-quality monitoring strategy.
Questions for Ken Crawford:
Q. (Bill Cooper) Question about interpreting that
trend from the 1st order streams and the 5th
order streams. There is also a big shift in carbon
dynamics. In the 1st order stream it is almost all
leaf litter, the discharge is fine particulate material
because of the shredder component. in the low
level streams, it is mostly fme particulate, detritus
food chains. That would explain the larger
accumulation in fish. They make half their diet of
{predatory?} insects. The whole carbon dynamics
are different and both dicidrin and DDT are
going to be adsorbed on that carbon. I wonder if
you couldn’t explain the distribution of DDT in
your sample on that basis?
A. an interesting concept, I wouldn’t want to touch it.
(tape ends)
0. [ unintelligible, but refers to comparing his data
with another data set or setsj
A. Well, I haven’t looked at the NCBP data (for this
area?). That’s the only other long term data set
we have for tissues. They are showing declines all
across the US for DDT’s. Are you familiar with
the National Contaminant Biomotikoring Program
of the Fish and Wildlife Service? It’s been in
operation since the mid 1960’s. it’s the only one
that’s been underway continuously for that long.
They are showing declines across the board in
many of the chlorinated pesticides that we are
monitoring. The one year of data that you’ve seen
here is all that we have. Washington DOE has
done some work with DDT’s, and I think tthat
they are also reporting declines in DDT’s in
biological organisms.
Q. Do you think that, for example the differences in
feeding habits between trout and sunfish may have
some bearing?
A. Sure, absolutely! That’s why our first priority is
bottom feeding fish. We’d like to get carp,
suckers, maybe even catfish, bullheads.
Q. Maybe that’s why you’re not getting so much
upstream .
A. Maybe, but we are also looking at whitefish
downstream, and they are showing increased
levels of these contaminants.
PESTiCIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
A Strategy for Monitoring Contemporary Pesticides
Entering Estuarine Habitats 1
Michael Rylko
EPA 10th Region, Office of Coastal Waters
Based on determinations of contemporary pesticide use in the Puget Sound basin, a reconnaissance
sampling effort was conducted to assess pesticide migration into estuarine habitats. Both whole-water and
sediment samples were collected. Analytical detection limits for both sediment and water samples were in
the low parts per billion range. Resulting data were intended to document possible discharges of pesticides to
Puget Sound estuaries under conditions that would favor pesticide transport. The data collection strategy
was not specifically designed to determine loadings to Puget Sound. However, flow-proportioned sampling
procedures were used and estimates of discharge were calculated at time of sample collection.
Five pesticides were detected in water samples: diazinon; 2,4 dichiorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D);
dicamba; bromacil; and diuron. Four pesticides were detected in sediment samples: dichiobenil, DDT and its
breakdown products (DDE and DDD), endosulfan , and pentachlorophenol.
Questions for Michael Rylko
0. Mike, you had a slide where you showed bottom
material and you had whole water samples, what
were your units of concentration?
A. Those were all parts per billion.
0. Even the bottom sediment?
A. Yes.
Q. That last slide where you showed the Dicamba in
the Nisqually and Skagit, did you only show the
sediment load?
A. yes, ‘88 data was wholly sediment. That’s the only
data we had tabulated, and I showed it just to
show you that there is both spatial and temporal
variability.
0. The emphasis on one event is good because you
can get fresh runoff from the application. It is
problematic because the flood mobilizes material
that was in the river before.
A. This is a very interesting point. During one of our
false starts we had a team that was one and a half
hour’s drive away. They called and said, it’s not
happening. We said, take the sample anyway.
And interestingly enough, we found things that we
did not expect. We got as many that day as we
did with the event afterwards. The concentrations
did not vary much, but the compounds that we
found certainly did, and those were probably 30
days apart.
0. At the beginning of your talk you referred to
[ sahnon?J (yeah), did you think any more about
it?
A. No, it was only a scenario to help us to think
about the kind of monitoring scheme we wanted
to develop, because that was the kind of issue we
wanted to apply our data to.
report of the results of this survey: Draft Report, 1990 Puget Sound Pesticide Recon
Survey, and results of prior surveys are available from Michael Ryilco, Office of Puget Sound
139), USEPA Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
naissance
(mailstop WD-
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
15
-------
Session II. Theoretical Studies: Dan McKenzie, Chair
Indicator and biomark r development .
Biomonitoring: Myth or Miracle?
Wayne G. Landis
Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(article)
Lichens as Biological Markers
Roger Rosentreter
U S Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
(article)
Bees as Biomonitors for Ecological Risk Assessments
Jerry J. Bromenshenk
Division of Biological Science, University of Montana
(abstract)
B. Methods of Risk Assessment
Applying Risk Assessment to Ecological Communities
William Cooper
Chairman, Department of Zoology, Michigan State University
(transcript)
C. Modelling of Community Responses to Hazards
Monitoring Pesticide Exposure and Impact
in Wildlife Inhabiting Agroecosystems
Michael J. Hooper
The Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology
Clemson University
(abstract)
A Model for Describing Community Change
Geoffrey Matthews
Computer Science Department
and
Robin Matthews
Huxley College of Environmental Studies
both authors at
Western Washington University
(article)
16 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Biomonitoring: Myth or Miracle?
Wayne G. Landis
Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Huxley College of Environmental Studies
Western Washington University
Beffingham, Washington 98225
ABSTRACF:
Biornonitoring is a tenn that includes a variety of biochemical physiological and ecological evaluations
designed to determine the health of a particular system. Two separate functions generally are placed in the
generic catego,y of biomonitoring. First is the detennination of environmental concentrations using analytical
or biochemical detenninations of biological tissue. Second, effects are monitored that provide an indication
of exposure and to c insult at various levels of biological organization. Importantly, methodologies labeled
as biomonitoring are usually designed to look at only one aspect of a toxicant impact upon an ecosystem or
species. Debate occurs as to what real significance can be placed upon the inhibition of a particular enzyme
or the loss of species diversity. Part of the debate is due to our lack of understanding of the functions that
describe the transformation of a chemical stiucture into an impact at the populational and ecosystem levels.
This overview delineates the common biomonitoring techniques in relationship to the path from toxicant input
to ecosystem effect. Each level is critiqued as to its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, recommendations for
fwther discussion and research are put forth.
INTRODUCTION
Biomonitoring is a term with
many meanings depending upon
the application and the regulatory
framework. This paper attempts
to summarize the initial discussion
paper and incorporate aspects of
the dialogue of the working group
at the recently held Pesticide
Biomonitoring Conference held
December 11-12, 1990 in Corvallis,
OR.
Reliability
Detecting an effect due to
xenobiotic intoxication
Biomonitoring is a term that
implies a biological system is
employed in some way for the
health evaluation of an ecosystem.
In general, biomonitoring
programs fall into two categories:
exposure and effects. Many of the
traditional monitoring programs
involve the analytical measurement
of a target compound with the
tissue of a sampled organism. The
examination of pesticide residues
in fish tissues or PCBs in
terrestrial mammals and birds are
examples of this application of
biomonitoring. Effects monitoring
looks at various levels of biological
organization attempting to
In effects testing there is the
problem of balancing specificity
with reliability (Figure 1).
Specificity is important since it is
crucial to know and understand
the causal factors in order to
dictate management or clean up
methods. However, an increase in
specificity generally decreases the
reliability of the system in seeing
an impact at the population or
Biomonitoring Tug of War
Specificity
Attributing an effect
to a specific cause
Figure 1. The Tug of War in Blomonitoring. An organismal
or community structure monitoring system may pick up a
variety of effects but lack the ability to determine the precise
cause. On the other hand, a specific test such as looking at
the inhibition of a particular enzyme system, may be very
specific but completely miss other modes of action.
evaluate the health of the
biological community in the field.
Generically, effects monitoring
allows a toxicologist to perform an
evaluation without an analytical
determination of any particular
chemical concentration.
Synergistic and antagonistic
interactions within complex
mixtures are integrated into the
biomonitoring response.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
17
-------
BIOMONITORING: MY1 H OR MIRACLE?
Introduction
xe nobiotic
Physiological and Behavorial
Ecosystem
Effects
Figure 2. Levels available for biomonitoring. Blomonitoring effectively falls Into two categories, (1) transport
and transformation of the xenobiotic before interaction with the site of action: and (2) impacts on the biology
of the organism and its community after the site of action has been altered by the compound. Technologies
are available to examine each level or interaction and impact.
community levels. This decrease
in reliability is simply due to the
numerous modes of action that
exist and that are exhibited by a
potential chemical contaminant. A
balancing act is usually done where
certain materials are specified by
experience or regulation,
narrowing the choice of materials
and impacts being monitored.
There is a continuum of
monitoring points along the path
that an effect on an ecosystem
takes from introduction of a
xenobiotic to the biosphere to the
final serious effects (Figure 2).
Techniques are available for
monitoring at each level although
they are not uniform for each class
of toxicant. If we as a scientific
community could write appropriate
functions that would describe the
transfer of an effect from its
interaction with a specific receptor
to the effects seen at the
community level, it would certainly
be easier to choose a
biomonitoring strategy.
Unfortunately, we understood only
in the poorest terms how the
impacts seen at the population and
community levels are propagated
from molecular interactions.
Given this background however, it
is possible to outline the current
levels of biomonitoring:
Bioaccumulation/
Biotransformation/
Biodegradation
Site of Action
Biochemical Monitoring
Physiological and Behavioral
Populational Parameters
Community Parameters
Ecosystem Effects
Many of these levels of effects can
be examined using organisms
native to the particular
environment or planted by the
researcher. There is an interesting
trade-off in which to use. The
naturally occurring organism
represents the population and the
ecological community that is under
surveillance. However, there is no
control over the genetic
background of the observed
population and little is usually
known about the native species
from a toxicological viewpoint.
introduced organisms, either
placed by the researcher or enticed
by the creation of habitat have the
advantage of a database and some
control over the source. However,
questions dealing with the realism
of the situation and the alteration
of the habitat to support the
introduced species can be raised.
The remainder of this
discussion will provide examples of
monitoring systems at each
organizational level. Effects at
virtually all levels of organization
can be observed using native or
introduced organisms.
Bioaccumu lation/
Biotransformation/
Biodegradation
A great deal can occur to the
introduced pesticide or other
xenobiotic from its introduction to
the environment to its interaction
at the site of action.
Bioaccumulation often occurs with
lipophilic materials. Tissues or the
entire organism can be analyzed
for the presence of compounds
such as PCBs and halogenated
organic pesticides. Often the
biotransformation and degradation
products can be detected, for
example, DDE is often an
indication of exposure to DDT in
Community Parameters
4$
Site of
Action
Biotransformation
Population parameters
Biochemical Indicators
18
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Landis
the past. Although analytical
chemistry has been the mainstay of
this aspect of biomonitoring other
methods may become useful.
With the advent of DNA probes it
may even be possible to use the
presence of certain dcgradative
plasmids and specific gene
sequences as indications of past
and current exposure to toxic
xenobiotics. Biosensors are a new
tool that may also hold promise as
new analytical tools. In this new
class of sensors a biological entity
such as the receptor molecule or
an antibody for a particular
xenobiotic is bound to an
appropriate electronic sensor. A
signal can then be produced as the
material bound to the chip
interacts with the toxicant.
Site of Action
The site at which the
xenobiotic interacts with the
organism is also a potential tool.
The site of action may be the
nucleic acids, specific proteins
within nerve synapses or present
within the cellular membrane, or it
can be very nonspecific. Narcosis
may affect the organism not by
interaction with a particular key
molecule, but by changing the
characteristics of the cell
membrane.
Biochemical Indicators
A great deal of research has
recently occurred on the
development of indicators to
determine the exposure and effects
of toxicants. Versteeg, Grany and
Giesy (1988) have recently
reviewed the utilization of
biochemical measures for aquatic
organisms. Often these
biochemical indicators are labeled
biomarkers. The following is only
a brief synopsis of this growing
field.
The inhibition of
acetylcholinesterase in plasma or
brain tissue has been investigated
extensively for a variety of
organisms, from birds to fish.
Numerous acetylcholinesterase
inhibitors are used in agricultural
activities making this marker
especially attractive.
Unfortunately, natural variation in
the levels of acetylcholinesterase
activity has not been as well
documented as methods in
determining inhibition. Recent
research by Hooper (abstract, this
volume) has started to tie natural
variation to the differences seen
upon exposure to an
acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.
Stress proteins are anotner
potential marker. As far as can be
determined, they are universal
(Bradly 1990). Stress proteins are
easily detected and the rate of
synthesis and the type of stress
protein produced can provide an
indication of the level of stress.
Unfortunately, many stressors
other than chemicals initiate the
production of stress proteins. The
presence of stress proteins may
not signal impact by a pollutant.
DNA adducts and strand
breakage can be used as indicators
of genotoxic materials (Shugart
1990). One advantage to these
methods is that the active site can
be examined for a variety of
organisms. The methodologies are
proven and can be used virtually
regardless of species. However,
damage to the DNA only provides
a broad classification as to the
type of toxicant. In addition, the
study of the normal variation and
damage to DNA in unpolluted
environments has just begun.
Immunological suppression by
xcnobiotics could have subtle but
important impacts on natural
populations. Invertebrates and
other organisms have a variety of
immunological responses that can
be examined in the laboratory
setting from field collections. The
immunological responses of
bivalves in some ways are similar
to vertebrate systems and can be
suppressed or activated by various
toxicants (Anderson 1975,
Anderson, et al, 1981). Mammals
and birds have well documented
immunological responses although
the impacts of pollutants are not
well understood. Considering the
importance to the organism,
immunological responses could be
very valuable at assessing the
health of an ecosystem at the
populational level.
Physiological and Behavioral
Indicators
Physiological and behavioral
indicators of impact within a
population are the classical means
by which the health of populations
are assessed. The major drawback
has been the extrapolation of these
factors based upon the health of
an individual organism, attributing
the damage to a particular
pollutant and extrapolating this to
the populational level.
Cytogenetic examination of
meiotic and mitotic cells can reveal
damage to genetic components of
the organism. Chromosomal
breakage, micronuclei, and various
trisomies can be detected
microscopically. Few organisms,
however, have the requisite
chromosomal maps to accurately
score more subtle type of damage.
Properly developed, cytogenetic
examinations may prove to be
powerful and sensitive indicators
of environmental contamination
for certain classes of materials.
Lesions and necrosis in tissues
have been the cornerstone of
much environmental pathology
(Meyers and Hindricks 1985).
Gills are sensitive tissues and often
reflect the presence of irritant
materials. In addition, damage to
the gills has an obvious and direct
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
19
-------
BIOMONITORING: MYTH OR MIRACLE?
impact upon the health of the
organism. Related to the
detection of lesions are those that
are tumorigenic. Tumors in fish,
especially flatfish, have been
extensively studied as indicators of
oncogenic materials in marine
sediments. Oncogenesis has also
been extensively studied in Medaka
and trout as a means of
determining the pathways
responsible for tumor
development. Development of
tumors in fish more commonly
found in natural communities
should follow similar mechanisms.
As with many indicators that may
be used in the process of
biomonitoring, relating the effect
of tumor development to the
health and reproduction of a wild
population has not been as closely
examined as the endpoint.
Reproductive success is
certainly another measure of the
health of an organism and is the
principal indicator of the
organism’s Darwinian fitness. In a
laboratory situation, it certainly is
possible to measure fecundity and
the success of offspring in their
maturation. In nature these
parameters may be very difficult to
measure accurately. Many factors
other than pollution can lead to
poor reproductive success.
Secondary effects, such as the
impact of habitat loss on
zooplankton populations essential
for fry feeding, will be seen in the
depression or elimination of the
young age classes.
Mortality is certainly easy to
assay on the individual organism,
however, it is of little use as a
monitoring tool.
Macroinvertebrates, such as
bivalves and cnidari , can be
examined and since they are
relatively sessile, the mortality can
be attributed to a factor in the
immediate environment. Fish
being mobile can die due to
exposure kilometers away or
because of multiple intoxications
during their migrations. Also, by
the time the fish are dying, the
other levels of the ecosystem are
in a sad state.
Although not biomonitoring in
the sense of sampling organisms
from a particular habitat, the use
of the cough response and
ventilatory rate of fish has been a
promising system for the
prevention of environmental
contamination (van der Schalie
1986, van der Schalie et al 1988).
Pioneered at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, the
measurement of the ventilatory
rate of fish using electrodes to pick
up the muscular contractions of
the operculum has been brought to
a very high stage of refinement. It
is now possible to continually
monitor water quality as perceived
by the test organisms with a
desktop computer analysis system
at relatively low cost.
Populatinn Parameters
A variety of endpoints have
been developed using the number
and structure of a population to
indicate stress. Population
numbers or density have been
widely used for plant, animal and
microbial populations in spite of
the problems in mark recapture
and other sampling strategies.
Since younger life stages are
considered to be more sensitive to
a variety of pollutants, shifts in age
structure to an older population
may indicate stress.
Unfortunately, as populations
mature, age determination or
comparison becomes difficult. In
addition, cycles in age structure
and population size occur due to
the inherent properties of the age
structure of the population and
predator-prey interactions.
Crashes in populations such as
that of the striped bass in the
Chesapeake Bay do occur and
certainly are observed. A crash
often does not lend itself to an
easy cause-effect relationship
making mitigation strategies
difficult to create.
The determination of
alterations in genetic structure,
that is the frequency of certain
marker alleles has become
increasingly popular. The
technology of gel electrophoresis
has made this a seemingly easy
procedure. Population geneticists
have long used this method to
observe alterations in gene
frequencies in populations of
bacteria, protozoa, plants, various
vertebrates and the famous
Drosophila. The largest drawback
in this method is ascribing
differential sensitivities to the
genotypes in question. Usually a
marker is used that demonstrates
heterogeneity within a particular
species . Toxicity tests can be
performed to provide relative
sensitivities. However, the genes
that have been looked at to date
are not genes controlling
xenobiotic metabolism, but are
genes that have some other
physiological function and act as a
marker for the remainder of the
genes within a particular linkage
group. Although with some
problems, this method does
promise to provide both
populational and biochemical data
that may prove useful in certain
circumstances.
Alterations in the competitive
abilities of organisms can be an
indication of pollution. Obviously,
bacteria that can use a xenobiotic
as a carbon or other nutrient
source, or that can detoxify a
material have a competitive
advantage, all other factors being
equal. Xenobiotics may also
enhance species diversity if a
particularly competitive species is
more sensitive to a particular
toxicant. These effects may lead
to an increase in plant or algal
diversity after the application of a
toxicant.
20
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Landis
Community Parameters
The structure of biological
communities has always been a
commonly used indicator of stress
in a biological community. Early
studies on cultural eutrophication
emphasized the impacts of
pollution as they altered the
species composition and energy
flow of aquatic ecosystems.
Various biological indices have
been developed to judge the health
of ecosystems by measuring
aspects of the invertebrate, fish or
plant populations. Perhaps the
largest drawback is the effort
necessary to accurately determine
the structure of ecosystems and to
understand pollution induced
effects from normal successional
changes. There is also the
temptation to reduce the data to a
single index or other parameter
that eliminates the dynamics and
stochastic properties of the
community.
One of the most widely used
indexes of community structure
has been species diversity. Many
measures for diversity are used,
from such elementary forms as
species number to measures based
on information theory. A decrease
in species diversity is usually taken
as an indication of stress or impact
upon a particular ecosystem.
Diversity as an index, however,
hides the dynamic nature of the
system and the effects of island
biogeography and seasonal state.
Also as demonstrated in
microcosm experiments (Landis et
al 1988a, 1988b, 1989), diversity is
often insensitive to toxicant
impacts.
Related to diversity is the
notion of static and dynamic
stability in ecosystems. Traditional
dogma stated that diverse
ecosystems were more stable and
therefore healthier than less rich
ecosystems. The work in the early
seventies of May (1974) did much
to question these almost
unquestionable assumptions about
properties of ecosystems. I
certainly do not doubt the
importance of biological diversity,
but diversity itself may be an
indication of the longevity and size
of the habitat rather than the
inherent properties of the
ecosystem. Rarely are basic
principals such as island
biogeography incorporated into
comparisons of species diversity
when assessments of community
health are made. Diversity should
be examined closely as to its worth
in determining xenobiotic impacts
upon biological communities.
Biomonitoring
Efficacy
Ecosystem Effects
Alterations in the species
composition and metabolism of an
ecosystem are the most dramatic
impacts that can be observed.
Acid precipitation has been
documented to cause dramatic
alterations in both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems.
Introduction of nutrients certainly
increase the rate of eutrophication.
As a part of a biomonitoring
strategy, these types of effects are
not of particular interest except
from the point of view of
documenting final effects.
Hopefully, a competent
biomonitoring strategy would
prevent this type of wholesale
destruction.
Synthesis
Many methods for the
biomonitoring of both terrestrial
and aquatic systems exist. None is
perfect. Methods emphasizing
molecular approaches certainly are
precise, yet have a long leap to the
description of ecosystem health.
Population, community and
ecosystem level approaches may
not be powerful enough due to
lack of sampling resources or
methodology to detect all but the
most obvious effects. Even the
description of a healthy ecosystem
sometimes is difficult considering
the fact that even the most remote
habitats have been subject to
contamination. Obviously a
concerted strategy is necessary to
perform an adequate job of
biomonitoring in any system. I
would like to propose a criterion
of biomonitoring efficacy that
could be used to judge the utility
of a biomonitoring scheme.
Figure 3 is a synopsis of this
efficacy factor. It is simply the
concentration at which a real
effect can be detected by a
biomonitoring strategy compared
Safety Factor Applied to Biomonitoring
Concentration at which undersirable
effects occur
concentration at which biomonitoririg
system registers an impact above background
Figure 3. Efficacy of a Blomonitoring Strategy. When
designing a biomonitoring strategy it is important to have
some calculation of how useful the system is. In applying
the idea of a safety factor or ratio to biomonitoring it could
simply be a comparison of the concentration of the pollutant
that causes an effect in the blomonitoring system as
opposed to the concentration that causes substantial
Impact.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
21
-------
BIOMONITORING: MYTH OR MIRACLE?
to the concentration that caused
damage to the system under
protection. Obviously, a ratio of 1
is of no practical use. Biochemical
methods may occasionally provide
large factors but produce an
inordinate amount of false alarms
and negatives, reducing the utility
of the test. Such a factor may
however, provide some estimate of
protection and an idea of the point
of diminishing returns.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. S. 1975.
Phagocytosis by invertebrate cells
in vitro: Biochemical events and
other characteristics compared
with vertebrate phagocytic systems.
In: Invertebrate Immunity:
mechanisms of invertebrate vector-
parasite relations. Academic
Press, Inc. San Francisco. pp 153-
180.
Anderson, R. S., C. S. Giam, L. E.
Ray and M. P.. Tripp. 1981.
Effects of environmental pollutants
on immunological competency of
the clam Merceneria merceneria:
impaired bacterial clearance.
Aquatic Toxicology, 1:187-195.
Bradly, B. P. 1990. Stress-
proteins: Their determination and
use in biomonitoring. In: Aquatic
Toxicology and Environmental
Fate: Thirteenth Volume ASTM
STP -1096. W. G. Landis and W.
H. van der Schalie, eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia. pp 338 347.
Landis, W. G., N. A. Chester, M.
V. Haley, D. W. Johnson, and W.
T. Muse, Jr. 1988a. Evaluation of
the aquatic toxicity and fate of
brass dust using the standard
aquatic microcosm. CRDEC-TR-
88116.
Landis, W. G., N. A. Chester, M.
V. Haley, D. W. Johnson, and R.
M. Tauber. 1988b. Evaluation of
the Aquatic Toxicity of Graphite
Dust Using the Standard Aquatic
Microcosm. CRDEC-TR-88133.
Landis, W. 0., N. A. Chester, M.
V. Haley, D. W. Johnson, W. T.
Muse, Jr., P.. M. Tauber 1989.
The utility of the standard aquatic
microcosm as a standard method
for ecotoxicological evaluation. In:
Aquatic Toxicology and
Environmental Fate: Eleventh
Volume ASTM STP-1007, G.
Suter and M. Adams Eds.
American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia pp 353-367.
May, R. M. 1974. Stability and
Complexity in Model Ecosystems.
Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Meyers, T. R. and J. D. Hendricks.
Flistopathology. In: Aquatic
Toxicology. Eds. G. M. Rand and
S. R. Petrocelli. Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, New
York. pp 283-334.
Shugart, L. R. 1990. DNA
damage as an indicator of
pollutant induced genotoxicity. In:
Aquatic Toxicology and
Environmental Fate: Thirteenth
Volume ASTM STP-1096. W. G.
Landis and W. H. van der Schalie,
eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia. pp
348-355.
van der Schalie, W. H. 1986. Can
biological monitoring early
warning systems be useful in
detecting toxic materials in water?
In: Aquatic Toxicology and
Environmental Fate: Ninth
Volume, ASTM STP 921, T. M.
Poston and P.. Purdy, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia. pp 107-
121.
van der Schalie, W. H., T. R.
Shedd and M. G. Zeeman, 1988.
Ventilatory and movement
responses of bluegills exposed to
1,3,5 trinitrobenzene. In: Aquatic
Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment: 10th Volume, ASTM
STP 971, W. J. Adams, G. A.
Chapman and W. G. Landis Eds.
American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia. pp 307-
315.
Versteeg, D. J., R. L. Graney, and
J. P. Giescy. 1988. Field
utilization of clinical measures for
the assessment of xenobiotic stress
in aquatic organisms. In: Aquatic
Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment: 10th Volume, ASTM
STP 971. W. J. Adams, G. A.
Chapman and W. G. Landis Eds.
American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia. pp 289-
306.
22
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Landis
Questions for Wayne Landis A. The trouble with that is that we don’t understand
that function, the one before the chemical gets to
Q. What does it mean when you get tissue the site, and the one after it leaves. If we knew
concentrations of, I’ll use the example of PCB’s. those functions, we wouldn’t be arguing, we’d
What does it mean when you go out monitor and know. Those functions are largely f(X). When
get all those numbers, at that level? you don’t know what X is!
A. Why did we spend all that money? I guess it’s
because we thought it might be important to
human health, not because of any risk
[ ecological?]. Have we looked at these other
parameters. The only thing I know of is that the
orgapochiorines may be immunosuppressors, and
the effects may not be due to straight toxicology,
but because all of a sudden you have a pandemic
running through the population because of
immunosuppression. Those are the kinds of
things that might be happening, but just because
PCB is there, without having any effect, I’m not SO
sure it does tell you very much. Also, chemistry is
only telling you that what you are looking for is
there, things that you don’t see may be the things
that are important. That’s the good thing about
biomonitoring, that hopefully you will pick up the
parameters about the things that you don’t
necessarily see.
Q. When you go out and measure body burdens, you
know what is out there, but when you measure,
lets say, cholinesterase inhibition, how, as a
regulator, can you say there’s an effect, right, but
you don’t know the source of that. So how do I
correct the problem?
A. That’s a good question! Acetyicholinesterase - I
have good days and bad days when I think about
acetyicholinesterase inhibition. Sometimes I say,
heres a molecule, you can say, “Yes, it’s being
inhibited”. But I know for a fact most of the
people here could walk around with 30 to 40% of
the cholinesterase in their blood plasma inhibited,
and you’d never know the difference. Not that
this is a particularly tense group of people! But
ecologically, that’s just the way it is.
0. We do bio-monitoring to see whether something
is just tipping over the side. A lot of times when
you are doing large-scale screening for
contaminants, be it 0-C’s or metals, without
knowing what kinds of biochemical end-points are
being affected, The biochemical end-point can be
that middle point between contaminant levels and
your population or ecosystem effects, and I think
that once you get a biochemical end-point
responding, you are starting tip the scales towards
an impact on the species.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
23
-------
Biomonitoring Workshop
A. There may have been questions that were not
answered earlier today; there wasn’t much time
for questions. We will have some round table
discussion, and then come up with some odds and
ends that we can give the other half of this group.
There’s not supposed to be a whole lot of
structure. That’s what Mike said. I think we
should examine at least research areas in order to
make biomonitoring be a better methodology, and
to tie it in to risk assessment. If anything I said in
my talk this morning got anyone’s adrenalin
flowing, or whatever, I’d be more than willing to
go into it.
0. Rice: you and Crawford alluded to what I call the
“organochioride mentality”, which many land
managers and others hold. It is so strongly
focussed on the behavioral experience, and
environmental fate of organochiorides, with their
high lipid solubility and their likely persistence,
and the whole process is driven by that
organochioride mentality, when in practice, in
pesticides we go past organophosphates, and even
a little bit past the carbamates, which have quite
different properties in terms of environmental
fate. The worst of it is that the people in the
chemical industry might argue that the
development of more specific compounds, less
persistent compounds, and less mobile compounds
is inhibited by the regulatory climate which we
inherited from the organochloride experience. I’d
like to say that this blocks us as researchers who
look at biomonitoring approaches, that we address
the types of compounds and current use patterns
that are in effect. It’s interesting to look at the
distribution of DDT in (?) bodies 20 years after
the chemical has been banned in North America,
but I don’t think it will lead us to address the
problems of the new generation.
0. I’ve seen that graduate students are so imbued
with the DDT mentality that it is almost
impossible to break them out of it.
0. Westerdahi: In my discussions with the chemical
industry, they have gone beyond the older
chemistries and are embarking on new ones, and
the thing that is impeding them in obtaining
registration is the length of time and cost involved
in obtaining registration. $50 to $75 million to get
registered. And despite the length of time it takes
them to get registered, they have such a short
period of time in which to recoup their costs, that,
except for the largest crop uses or pests by areas,
they are beginning to slow down their
development of new products. So they are under
the gun, they are looking for ways to develop new,
environmentally safe compounds, and putting out
less compound and being as effective or more
effective, but they are also tied into the regulatory
requirements. So you are seeing a slowdown in
the development of new chemicals, but at the
same time you are seeing an increase in the rate
of development of new methods of application, at
lower rates, better formulations, improved
carriers, that target the desired pest. I think that
when we think of monitoring in the future we are
going to have to take into account the mentality of
the industry that we are looking at, both from the
active ingredient standpoint and the method of
application and carrier used. So, the ways of
sampling used in the past may not be appropriate
for the future.
0. 1 think we need to define what our goals are for
biomonitoring. Two things came up in discussion
this morning. One of those goals is to monitor
all of the kinds of chemicals and see what’s there,
and the other is to use biomonitoring, and see
what are the ecological effects of what is there.
Maybe we can talk about how those two goals can
get integrated, or do they have to be integrated.
Or, which one should be looked at first. I’d like
to hear some discussion about those two disparate
goals, and do people see them as disparate.
A. I also think that ties right into this: if you really
understand what you want from biomonitoring,
this will fall out. If you are monitoring for
pyrethroids, you’ll have to use new methods, but
you still, I should think your goals will be
somewhat similar. You definitely need to define
those goals. I don’t know if the chemistry is as
important to me as the effects. We must ask,
have we done a good job. If we have done a good
job, it’s because our methods are good.
0. We want to identify the target population. If we
want to measure what may happen to a target
organism, we may have to monitor at some other
level in the food chain. A functional grouping
that may be affecting that, earlier on, so that we
Wayne Landis, Chair
[ Note: “0.” denotes audience comment; the speaker’s name is given if identified.
“A.” denotes comment from chair. This is an edited transcript.J
24
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
can tell quicker the status and trend of that
organism. Too often, we may be oriented toward
monitoring the target species rather than the
functional organisms that may be more important
as far as what the impact may be on the longer
term scale. So there are a lot of questions that
are important as far as biomonitoring is
concerned. Are we looking at status now, are we
trying to predict what the immediate effects on
targets are, or are we trying to predict the long-
term effects on the targets and/or the selected
non-targets.
0. We are talking about a lot of different pesticides.
I hear a lot of people talking about pesticides, and
what they are really talking abut is insecticides.
My particular need is to look at the effects of
herbicides, particularly in forestry environments. I
would like to see coming out of this group, new
methods of looking not only at new insecticides
but also at currently used herbicides.
Q. The problem is that the methods that have been
developed to look at insecticides may not be the
best ones to look at herbicides, and I’m thinking
particularly about the DDT situation, which we
know bio-accuniulates very strongly, while the
herbicides are less bio-accuniulative.
0. But if you are looking at effects, you need
analytical methods. Do you need to measure
residues, or can you look at effects, just monitor
trends in effects without the residue data? Do you
absolutely need the residue data, or are there
ways to measure correlations from the effects to
the causes with use patterns?
Q. From a management perspective, you have to
know what dose you must limit, to keep those
effects from manifesting themselves in the system.
0. Compounding the problem, EPA and the states
have done a lot of work developing criteria on the
aquatic environment and water quality criteria,
and none of that has been focussed on herbicides.
It’s all been insecticides.
0. A point about herbicides. The great majority of
pesticides applied in the U.S. are herbicides, and
they are applied on corn and soybeans, and most
of the insecticides are applied to cotton. And with
the advent of the sulfano-ureas, the newer
herbicides are not a mammalian toxicity problem
at all. They are less toxic than table salt. They
are extremely toxic to plants, however, and they
could come into natural systems, for instance by
drift and re-volatilization from fields, and
potentially could raise problems. Not only could
they raise problems in the plant communities, but
there are secondary effects, that probably would
raise more concern, if we start altering food
availability for higher organisms.
0. I was just wondering, two ideas, one is looking at
ecosystems function, and effects on function, and
other people are also developing new techniques,
techniques for herbicides as opposed to classical
pesticides. Somehow, I don’t think those ideas are
all that separate, because in order to observe
effects we have to develop new techniques, but to
develop those techniques we have to know what
effects we want when we start looking at it. Now
lets think about (?) effects, and how they might be
different, and the thinks you are looking at may
be different, but I don’t think they will be all that
different, because you are looking at key
ecosystem functions, and they won’t be that
different, no matter what the xenobiotic you are
applying. And so you may come up with a
scheme that is applicable no matter whether you
are looking at an herbicide, rodenticide,
insecticide or whatever, and also a way of
breaking it down, perhaps more important than
things you can’t measure, such as, is it an
herbicide, rodenticide, or whatever. But I don’t
hear the difference that much because we are
starting to hear effects a lot, and so what if you
have luciferase in a test plate, so what?
Q. In some of the bird work the indirect effect of
pesticides on game birds is through the
eradication with herbicides of the weeds that
supported most of the insects, so what you are
talking about is not particularly residues, perhaps,
but insect densities so this gets into a real
complicated situation. It’s not like going out and
sampling a tissue, it’s more complicated.
0. I think the agro-ecosystem in the midwest, for
example, that supports 60% of the world is very
different than the system on the Indian homelands
of southwestern Idaho. So, different methods.
A. Yeah, the methods are going to be different.
0. Yeah, if the methods have to be different when
studying herbicides vs insecticides, we have a bit
of an institutional problem, in that my project
would have to be funded through EPA, EPA is
pushing a particular method, the rapid bio-
assessment protocol, so if we use this method, the
project stands a better chance of being funded. I
would like to think I can use the RBP, but we
have inherent limitations with these widely pushed
methods, and if people have funding behind that,
then that needs to be fed back to EPA.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED?
25
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
basic effects, perhaps you are not really
elucidating things thoroughly, but perhaps you
have some indicators that are affecting some
species.
0. As far as effects are concerned, my biggest
concern is that we are trying to look at a picture
by only looking at pixels, in the picture. Some of
these methods that we are trying to use, well, did
you ever look at a space shot where just some of
the pixels are shown? And all you see are “O”s and
“l”s. Sometimes I think that all we are looking at
is 0”s and “1”s. We are not looking at the picture
very well. If we were looking at effects in the
ecosystem, though, we could look at the picture.
Maybe being so method-driven is not so good, and
maybe we should have some other methods of
looking at data. And also we have to understand
the regulatory impetus. I have students ask me,
well, Wayne, you are always preaching all this
stuff, but what is really done? Acetylcholine-
esterase or total chlorophyll, or something like
that. Maybe it’s that we can’t handle all the data,
maybe that’s it, which I don’t believe. If you can
compute Mach 5 airflow over an airframe, you
can try to handle some of the data that we have.
Maybe we should re-orient our thinking a little
bit, and I’ll throw this out, and ask you to do that.
0. 1 think we should be more prudent in how we
spend our dollars as those dollars are drying up
because of other budgetary needs. This means
that the type of sampling that’s gone on over the
past decade where you are collecting only 3 eggs
and trying to make some sort of policy judgement
from that needs to be curtailed and better
planning over how we assess things in the field -
not only looking at the little 0’s and l’s but trying
to get a picture of what is happening out there
instead of picking these little things apart and then
trying to put the picture together. Especially
when you don’t have all the puzzle pieces.
Especially when we are going to get short on
dollars. Things are going to get tight out there.
A. We are going to have to get smart.
Q. It is tough to get dollars now, and we need to get
every answer we can with the dollars we have.
Q. And now that we are using pesticides that are not
persistent, that poses another - you no longer go
out and measure residues. You got out and
measure effects now rather than know what the
chemicals were to begin with.
A. You mean the chemicals don’t have the good
grace to stick around for 10 years?
0. I think that is something that is going to drive our
monitoring future.
0. Speaking of being smart, I just came back from a
conference last week, it was a Forest Service
Conference. Basically dealing with Biodiversity,
and I think the two take-home lessons from that
conference might be relevant here. One is that
most of these issues are going to have to be found
from a bottoms’ up basis, because the actual
solution depends on the individual situation You
can’t have a top down decision from Washington
saying that all ecosystems have to be treated in a
particular way. And the other thing basically is to
get the involvement and to predict what the public
is going to do in terms of public suits. Everybody
in this room has been spared, or sort of spared
the pressures that the forest service has been
through in terms of the spotted owl, but it’s going
to happen to managers in this room. There are
ways that you can predict that; there are also ways
that you can start to work with pivotal groups and
pivotal people who will work to bridge the gap in
those ethical discussions, and I think that element
is very important in a discussion like this.
0. (Anne) I heard a couple of similarities in the
needs expressed in the monitoring talks this
morning. One of them was the need to define
reference sites so that you know what is clean,
what is pristine, what am I comparing my
disturbed site to. The other need that I heard is
the need to be able to say, what is the variability
of my biomonitoring tool, and was that variability
less than natural variability so that I can detect
differences when they occur. Thirdly, there are a
lot of biomonitoring tools being developed in the
field, and I am as guilty of this as Wayne is, and
how can you take these tools and apply them to a
field situation, what is the lab to field comparisons
and realities that you have in terms of these kinds
of tools. Those are at least three basic research
areas that I feel are basic to all biomonitoring
methods that we have and I’d like to know if
anyone has other issues along those lines that they
would like to throw out on the table.
A. I’ll tell Anne, and anyone else, I don’t believe in
reference sites anymore. I read a paper about
Ohio streams, he said he had pristine Ohio
streams. - - -SURE -! Pristine Ohio streams!
0. Probably you were reading one of my papers, and
I never said pristine. I’m familiar with the Ohio
data, they had reference sites, and the reference
sites weren’t ever called pristine.
26
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
I never said pristine. I’m familiar with the Ohio
data, they had reference sites, and the reference
sites weren’t ever called pristine.
A. Yes., there’s a distinction there, a reference site
doesn’t have to be pristine. A reference site is
just something you compare it j . I certainly
don’t think you will find any pre-colonial, non-
impacted site in the lower 48. Well, we can argue
about the field of paleo-ecology and how that
would fit in to it. I tried that once. The first time
I chaired the aquatic toxin symposium and we had
a whole session on paleo-limnology, and that’s
why I doubt that there are any non-impacted
streams, because you can tell when the colonial
farmers came in and cut down trees by the
changes in the diversity of the invertebrate
population.
0. We have an instance of reference sites with
Canada geese, they were ingesting heptachior
treated seed in one area, and in another area they
were using Lindane, which isn’t on seed, it’s not a
problem, does not bio-accumulate, and may have
been some (?) repellency. These two areas were
only 40 miles apart, and the geese were mobile.
But in that case we could use a reference area. In
one area the geese were doing great, and in the
other area they were dying and having much lower
reproductive success. You have to seek these
reference areas very carefully, but they are
possible to find in the environment.
A. There is consensus then that reference areas don’t
have to be pristine. I agree with that. I wonder if
one of the points from this work group would be
that someone could sit down and develop
guidelines for choosing reference areas when we
are setting up biomonitoring programs, because
there is a wide range of conditions that one
worker might choose as a reference, and it would
be good if there were some guidelines for
selecting reference conditions for a particular
project, so we could conduct a study and have
some confidence that there would not be a lot of
argument about the validity of the reference.
A. Do you think it would be a good idea to set up
protected reference sites in various biomes?
0. How would you do that in an agricultural setting?
A. Well, you could do a BDR(?).
0. One of the things you would need in a reference
is your spatial scale. That’s related to what your
problem or issue is, why you are monitoring. Do
you care about something happening on a regional
scale or a very local scale. There are arguments
made now that a lot of toxins are very local, and
that’s not the major issue, and yet that’s where
most of the money goes. In choosing reference
sites or conditions you need some kind of
geographic framework, if are going to deal with a
big area, it’s the feeling of a lot of us at this lab
that you need a geographic framework, ecoregions
as Degraub (?) used. From which you can chose
sites based on the typicalness of them, and in
Ohio if you are looking for the least impaired site
in northwestern Ohio you are looking for a place
than hasn’t been channelized in the last 20 years.
You won’t find a site that hasn’t been channelized
ever.
A. Also our idea of scale is important, it seems we
haven’t thought much about (the concepts of)
island biogeography and how that affects species
diversity, what kinds of species are going to be
there. Things like those kinds of scalers are going
to be important in choosing our various sites.
Some sites won’t be comparable not because of
any toxic inputs but because of these other factors,
just chance factors, and how do we pick reference
sites to accommodate those factors, and do we
need to? Just because a stream is not as large, or
does not have as many riffles, or may not be as
close to other areas where you could get a
colonization problem, can we compensate and still
use that reference site. If we assume that a
reference site is good for just that area
immediately around it, then we will run out of
reference sites real quick! There is a lot of
ecological theory out there that we are not
applying very well. We need to start thinking
about how to apply some of that old, well, 25 year
old theory to accommodate some of these
differences in reference sites.
Q. If we are interested in measuring changes in status
and trends should we be monitoring accedence
instead of ecoregions?
A. I don’t understand what an ecoregion is. I know
the definitions, but there is a lot of discussion
about that, we could argue it around this table for
the next 6 months. But accedence, or transition
regions we can see, we pick them up on the
satellites, or seeing changes in the edge effects all
the time. Maybe that is where our biomonitorng
program should be concentrating, on accedence of
large ecosystems or landscape areas, instead of
the particular characteristics of the ecoregions.
Maybe they are two different questions, maybe we
should be looking at the short-term changes in the
accedence rather than long term on the
ecoregions themselves.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
27
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
A. Exactly, and concentrating our efforts in the
accedence.
0. As I see it, the shrinking of ecosystems is a
(great) concern. In the lower Mississippi Valley,
I’ve read recently that the EPA has had to
respond to litigation about whether wetlands that
are proposed for development would be conserved
or not, by considering, not just that particular
development but the history of the whole region.
0. A changing ecotone may bear no relationship at
all to environmental pollutants, but they affect
how these pollutants are distributed or applied.
A. Oh, I think that’s important, just because you see
an effect, don’t assume the cause. Oh, there’s
PCI3 in the fish, this must be doing it.
0. I’m looking at biomonitoring not as an end in
itself but as a tool that’s going to be used to
answer a question. I think you have to formulate
the question that’s going to be answered. If it’s
the impact of logging on a watershed, or is this
pesticide accumulating, biomonitoring is a tool
used to answer the question.
0. Seems like everybody at this table has a little bit
different view of what we should be talking about.
A. Right, I used to fool with chemical warfare
precursors. It’s a lot different perspective than I
have now as an academic. Which I have to teach
these things. (laughter)
0. We have a place for you!
A. We have a problem in that we don’t know what
the big impacts will be 10 years from now. We
want to be ready for it, is it here, there?
Q. That could be your question.
A. But that’s not focussed.
0. The question is focussed in trying to identify
unknown impacts.
A. But I think the problem is that we have this big
data funnel, have all this data we gathered, but
that’s not what we are interested in. We have to
have a description, healthy or unhealthy, polluted
or unpolluted, good or bad in the ultimate
analysis!, and at the same time, the studies are so
big and so expensive, that we can’t do them. So
in the future we want to know just what it is that
we have to look at, so that we can take this small
amount of the data and blow it up into the big
picture, “this means health and this means
sickness”. I view it as a very general problem,
astronomers are getting all this data, and there
aren’t enough astronomers in the world to
interpret it all. We need some kind of
codification or intuition about the data so that an
ecological scientist can go out and say - he can’t
say it on the record or in court or anything, but he
can say to himself, “this is a healthy system”, even
in Ohio.
0. I think a codification or mechanization, a better
way of looking at piles of data, rather than, - the
mean of this pile is different than the mean of this
pile - is not a good description of what health and
sickness are. We need a stronger focus in terms
of qualitative, not just qualitative because it has to
be in terms of numbers, but a number that says
‘health”, or is meaningful. I’ll be talking about
this tomorrow. It’s a huge problem, and subject
to all sorts of political contentions. I think that
the direction that we have to go in is to reduce
from many numbers to a few. Diversity indices, I
think, go in this direction, but they go too far. I
mean, do you want diversity or do you want non-
diversity? Well, that’s not what we want. I think
most of you have seen cases where the diversity
basically just stays flat even though the system
goes completely anaerobic or whatever.
We need, maybe a handful of numbers or a
handful of words, instead of thousands, and that
handful will tell us what to do in the future. We
need that kind of description, that over-arching
vocabulary: that’s the kind of vocabulary we are
looking for in monitoring to reduce the data to
something we can handle, and then use that
handle to guide your studies in the future.
0. Sounds to me you are saying that acquisition of
data is not science. In that what we have been
doing (unintelligible)
A. Even before you get a good theory you need a
description of what you are talking about.
0. Well, that kind of goal is what led EPA to develop
the rapid bioassessment protocol.
A. I’m not sure taking less is taking better, though,
not speaking for or against that particular
protocol.(?)
0. I’m not sure about how to take the decision about
- who is going to make the decision about what
information to take, or how those people who
regulate will, as to which is the relevant
28
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
0. I’m not sure about how to take the decision about
- who is going to make the decision about what
information to take, or how those people who
regulate will, as to which is the relevant
information because all of the information is so
different. It becomes a person’s opinion as to
which information is important. What you are
looking at is similar to when a physician has a
patient and is trying to diagnose, and he can order
a blood sample, and there are millions of things
he could be looking for, and that many tests, and
he doesn’t do all of them. He has a first queue.
0. Well, there’s a lesson to be learned from that, and
furthermore, the clinicians learned long ago to
standardize their terminology
(Turn tape over)
0. I think there’s a role for a wide range of
monitoring activities. Some are going to be
suitable for research and some suitable for
regulatory agencies, and a lot of what ends up in
the regulatory agencies started out years ahead of
time as someone’s research proposal. But you
can’t answer all questions with one approach to
biological monitoring. A lot of that monitoring is
in place right now, but it doesn’t get used once
the compound is registered. Everything there is
set once the product goes on the market.
0. It’s not assessed in the environment.
0. It’s set. broad-scale field assessments. It’s
preempted, there is no regulated follow through.
The assessments are done, whether it’s ? and
cholinesterase, whether it’s herbicide and drift on
? local plants, the direction is to the front end. In
England they are very proud of their post-
registration evaluation. They take in the data
post-registration - mortality - any problems that
come up, there is a database set up by the
government which takes it in. There is no
legislative means to do that here.
Q. That’s a very important point, the (matter) of
follow up after registration. We don’t even know
where pesticides are being used, or how much.
0. An extremely important point is that all the pre-
registration monitoring that is done is done on a
single compound on an isolated site. Nothing is
done where you are looking at 50 square miles of
compound or on a mosaic of agriculture where
different compounds are used on each crop. I
think that a lot of the background and a lot of the
basics to the monitoring process are in place now,
but they are not being applied post-registration.
That is a strong direction that needs to be
followed.
0. Which is why we are here.
A. See, Mike, I would disagree that the
biomonitoring is in place, especially when you
compare it to Europe. Western Europe. Up in
the North Cascades - what biomonitoring!!? It
always seems that we are doing crisis
management. Why was there an acid rain
program? We didn’t believe in acid again until
January 21? (political character to next
comment!) This is stuff that a graduate student
came in and talked about in 1975! “This is a
national problem, maybe we should think about
doing something about this.!” But, what got all
the monitoring programs going is when someone
said there might be a problem. Biomonitoring is
not in there until someone wants to prove that [ a
substance is] safe or dangerous.
0. That’s what happened in Idaho - someone called
us up in SE Idaho, said “We’ve got a field full of
dead sage grouse.”
0. That’s the other point, a lot of times you don’t
know what you’ve got out there. California is one
of the few states where you can get lists of what’s
been applied.
A. In the great environmental State of Washington,
we wanted to know what kinds of pesticides had
been applied. The Department of Wildlife came
back and said, “Forget it.” They couldn’t get lists,
even on an anecdotal basis.
0. I think this a point we are missing. I know this is
biomonitoring, but this also has to do with the
farmers. I think we need to work cooperatively
with them. We know what the value of wildlife is,
and we know these things are affecting wildlife
and fish. We need to educate these farmers while
we are monitoring.
0. I think that the passage of the farm bill with the
large leasing program indicates the public concern
in this area. The farmers farm the policy, they
don’t farm what’s on the land. I think that the
other group on risk assessment is probably talking
abut it. There are two sides of the coin, there is
risk and thee is hazard. So far, all that we have
been talking is about is hazards or effects. So, are
there systems in place or things that people are
working on to look at exposure, - and not just
doing analytical chemistry. Jerry Bromenshenk’s
bee populations, for example, can they be used to
look at exposure? What is bio-available.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
29
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
Q. What Jerry s doing with bees can be done with
other forms of free-ranging wildlife, but it’s
extremely expensive to do, for example with
songbirds. Jerry can get his hands on five billion
bees in ten minutes. To do that same kind of
thing with vertebrates would be prohibitively
costly.
0. I have a? next door to me, now these farmers
know what’s going on their land, there are certain
subtle effects that they don’t know about, but I
think in a lot cases they can educate us.
Q, None of them are required to report or identify
effects. It would seem like all too often it’s easier
to hit the applicator or the companies, but the end
user may have a responsibility, too, in monitoring
and sending that information off to the regulators
so that they can make better policy. I think of the
wealth of data that’s available in the farm belt, on
herbicide and pesticide use that the corporate
farmers have in the breadbasket of America, I’ll
bet you they would fill this room up with reams of
data that we have never even considered, nor
would we know how to use. Probably if put
together it would give a pretty good picture of
what has occurred over the years, and is available
through recordkeeping that they may have on
their own personal property.
0. All too often I think we focus too much on the
applicator instead of the end user.
A. I think, in answer to your question, that the effects
and concentration both need to be looked at.
OP’s tend to have certain effects. Also you can
look at enzyme induction, community change,
things like that. Referring to the biomonitoring
question, you know, Weather balloons are sent up
twice a day from thousands of stations across the
country, and they gather all kinds of data. We
don’t have anything like that for biological
information. I’ll bet we could answer questions
about effects and concentrations and so forth if
we looked at things in similar fashion, and it was
all timed together in some sort of routine
fashion - and I’m not talking EMAP here, either.
0. 1 think it might be useful to focus in on what we
mean by effects. I thought I heard Bill Cooper
say that he’s not really aware of any effects on
populations, and that’s not something I agree with,
because I think that in some of our raptors we
saw some effects. So, are residues effects, and is
that really significant? and Larry had 43 dead sage
grouse down there. Is that significant? I mean
there’s still sage grouse down there where they
are spraying. So I think that is really an
important point that he made, that is, what is the
effect on the ecosystem and on the species, versus
residues, and some mortality that may or may not
be significant. You know, we are throwing this
word ‘effects’ around here, and I’m not sure what
level we are talking about. You can measure the
effect on a species so easily, in terms of
population change, compared to defming an effect
on an ecosystem. You can say, well, there’s a
reduction in this population and a rise in that one,
and so I can see a change, but is it an absolutely
irreversible change?
A. We had that question about enzyme induction. Is
that really an effect? does it really care or not?
That’s a good question. I think the answer is, it
depends on what you are trying to protect. If you
are trying to protect some bird, an endangered
species, then that’s an important effect. If you are
trying to support an agro-ecosystem, it’s a
broader-term effect. Your effects are scaled.
Some of your smaller effects like enzyme
induction may give you information on
concentration and so forth, but they may enable
you to make other kinds of predictions. We tend
to think of long-term as a year. - - -The things
that we are looking at now, well, you were kids
when the initial inputs were put in. And the
things that we should be looking at now, we won’t
see for another 10 or 15 years, so that’s why
Anne’s point about being sure we can see
concentrations and so forth, that could be
important because those are things, that, on a
larger scale could have an effect down the road.
0. 1 think that our discussion just keeps returning to
the persistent compounds that - and in terms of
herbicides, certainly in surface water systems,
transient systems, we are talking about transient,
episodic events in terms of the exposure. To put
research money into trying to monitor these
chemicals when they may only be in the system
for 12 hours to a few days, is difficult. I’ll give
you one definition of effects that I think influences
a lot of people. We deal with aquatic systems,
and we say an effect is any measurable adverse
impact on aquatic life.
0. That’s begging the question, though, what about
birds (or vertebrates)
0. I can demonstrate that there’s no adverse effect
on a heated lake at the Savannah River plant, at
about 450 Celsius. If you really want to stretch
the term. That word adverse is a notoriously
difficult problem to approach, and is only as good
as the people who assign it.
30
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
0. If you can identify effects, and the public is aware
of those effects, then the question of the relative
importance of those effects will be addressed by
the public.
0. 1 didn’t say significant adverse effects, I just said
adverse effects. If you caused significant drift in a
population of invertebrates as a result of applying
a chemical, then I think that would qualify as an
effect.
0. I want to go back to the previous question. I
work in the Department of Fisheries, and down in
Willapa Bay they spray Sevin to control ghost
shrimp, because their burrowing activity causes
oysters to sink into the mud. Sevin, or carbaryl is
a short-lived chemical in the environment.
However, it has adverse effects on organisms
other than the target organism. How do you
measure the effects on other organisms, such as
the organisms that the juvenile salmon feed on?
A. You are talking not about the direct effects, but
abut other perturbations, and that may only be
determined by the it’s historical lesson-makers.
You are killing all the juveniles, that alters the age
structure, you are killing all the adults, something
else - you will see an effect that is going to be
passed on for several years, depending on the
cycle of the organism, not just due to the
persistence of the chemical.
[ Confused, but animated discussion about what bio-
monitoring means: not tissue residues, but long-term
community monitoring, says one.]
0. Biomonitoring means too many different things.
0. We have to define the problem before we start
monitoring. This gives you a general idea of what
kinds of things you have to collect before you start
sampling.
The other problem is the information explosion.
Wayne Sam’s (?) studies are about as simple
(interject: 16 species), yeah, 16 species, about as
simple as a multi community (?) study can get,
and yet the information from those 16 species is
too much for one person to handle. Making all
that information into something that is
understandable.
Communicating between groups is another issue.
Lots of people are biomonitoring now. We have
seen a lot of examples, indicating that nationwide,
there are a lot of reference sites but do you know
about them unless you have been to this
conference this morning? How you get
information on reference sites, I’ve just been
through this with a river basin, I was just looking
at the list of people that I have to call just to find
out if there is any information that has been
collected so far. It goes on for a page!
There are some overlying problems, that pertain
to all biomonitoring, but if we go beyond them,
we are going to have to get a little more specific
about whether we are talking about herbicides or
insecticides, whether we are talking about
predictive or retroactive. I don’t think DDT is a
dead issue, it’s still there, jf you are asking the
question, whether it’s still out there. We already
found out that it’s no longer all DDT, the un-
degraded DDT is 40% of what’s out there. So it’s
not a dead issue if you want to know what’s
coming into the system. But if you are trying to
for new pesticides, it’s hopeless.
A. A friend of mine, Jess Patton, takes biological
receptors, puts them on a piezo-electric crystal, or
something like that, so that a toxin can actually
react with this biological entity and he can get a
reading. Is that biomonitoring, or is that
analytical chemistry? If you are interested in
things like organophosphates, you look at
cholinesterase. It binds right there. Or what he’s
done is look at T-2 toxin. He’s got receptors for
that. T-2 binds to it, and it changes the frequency
of the crystal, So, that kind of bio-monitoring
takes most of the junk away. I think that would
be a very useful technique for measuring for OflC
or two chemicals.
0. You made the statement in your talk today that
everyone in this room, according to their
cholinesterase, may not be functioning, so what.
A. The “so what” question is important, too.
0. That gets back to the question of whether you are
trying to monitor for exposure or for effect. I
think that cholinesterase is an example of people
trying to use what is primarily an exposure marker
to define effect.
A. and: “Ask the right question”!
0. In terms of asking the right question, it seems to
me that we never did talk about having a goal
here, in terms of biological monitoring. I think
we should establish some goals and then get into
technical discussion of how to reach those goals.
0. I’ll throw one out now, and that’s monitoring
change over time, I think that’s why it’s important
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
31
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
to perfect the technique now that’ll be consistent.
In the chemical water quality data, for example,
there are very few cases where we can go back 30
or 40 years and have been monitoring the changes
that have occurred over time. Where we have the
rare data set they are extremely useful. As soon
as we can achieve some consistency in data
collection - biological data collection, that will give
us an extremely powerful tool to use in the future.
We have to think about the immediate short term
project,for goal setting, but we should also think
about the basic representative data that can be
used in logical ways 20 years from now. People
may use that data in ways that we have never even
thought of.
A. I think that’s a pretty good outline. There are
several questions coming out - there is the
question of basic techniques for the long term,
there is information processing. Communication
is another important topic. Developing standard
methods takes time and communication. But at
times it seems that techniques drive the
monitoring process more than the question you
are asking. It’s good that we have the risk
assessment workshop, too. I have been to some
risk assessment conferences, where they ask us to
get dose-response curves for all these different
age groups in the population. Now that’s crazy!
Q. Another goal that I can suggest is the “so what”
question. From a management position, to turn
an “effect” into a damage assessment to an
ecosystem. The dollar drives everything, and in
the case of superfund sites and so on, [ we have to]
place a dollar value on natural resource damage,
to assess the responsible party so they fix it. Hey,
it’s a nightmare!
A. Another committee that I’m on, we ask, “how
clean is clean”.
Q. A lot of people in Europe think that we are way
too clean, orders of magnitude too stringent. Also
in other places around the world, It’s a question
of social values.
0. One way to get at that is to sample along a
gradient from clean side to polluted side, so that
you have more than two samples. I think the “so
what question is obviously the most important
question. That sets up the question (?), and your
techniques.
0. I’d like to get back to that subject of using
farmers as monitors. They have access to a lot of
information, but there isn’t a system that
coordinates that information. There’s no
framework that farmers report to extension
agents,.
[ an extensive discussion of the veracity of farmers and
the scruples of produce buyers is deleted. The general
point was that farmers will cooperate with research
workers if they do not think their own livelihood is
being threatened.]
0. From a toxicological sense, we look at cause and
effect out there, but the bottom line is being used
because the market dictates that the potato that
comes into the store has to be perfect. It has to
be a certain size, no knobs on it, the apple has to
be a certain size and color. We have to change
the attitude of people to minimize the amount of
chemicals being distributed out to the
environment. This would take care of a lot of
our problems. For example, where I’m working
right now, they are using over 34 chemicals in a
small area - Kiamath Falls. And, that’s a lot of
stuff! And they are putting stuff together, we
don’t even know how it works!. They are putting
fungicides with insecticides, they are putting other
chemicals, two different insecticides together. We
don’t know how that enhances, etc.
A. I’d like to come back to that
Q. I guess the bottom line is we have to change not
only our way of doing things, but change the
attitude of the country. We are a monocultural
society right now, we grow one kind of tree, one
kind of crop.
0. There is a dramatic change underway in farming.
In 1980 there was an estimated 200,000 farms
registered in organic farming, and now I think the
figure is 500,000, so that is a positive end that is
occurring, and a lot more people are seeking
organically grown produce in the store.
A. And some farmers are growing part of their crop
organically and some not. They say, if people will
buy it, I’ll make it! But we’ve gotten a long way
from bio-monitoring.
Thirty seven different compounds being used in a
particular county. Can you imagine trying to
quantify all the effects, concentrations, and so
forth? And that’s not a-typical.
I go back to the question about how you take
things from the lab to the field. In this case, you
don’t. I think the lab has a function, in predictive
estimates and evaluations between simple
combinations, but as far as when you get out in
the real world, multiple applications, different soil
32
PESTICJDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
types, different environments and so on, you are
not going to do it.
0. I think sometimes there are red flags out there
that help drive our system. Declining populations
of one species or another, piles of dead die-offs,
you guys in the lab may come up with something
that says, “hey, this doesn’t look right”. in which
case you take that work to the field to
experimentally manipulate an area to get a better
handle on what goes on, but I think it’s a bits and
pieces approach, that you have to build, as
opposed to understanding the whole system at
once.
A. Is anyone getting tired?
(end of day)
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED? 33
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
Summary
Wayne Landis
Well, we had an interesting discussion, and that
pretty much summarizes it, right. I’ll go through some
of the things we talked about, and if I got it wrong, I’ll
let you all correct me.
Biomonito jmg - one of the things that was brought up
was, maybe we should drop this organochiorine
paradigm. I think that is pretty important, because we
keep talking about things lasting in the environment
for 10 or 15 years, and the new types of chemicals we
have probably aren’t going to be around, at least in
that chemical structure, for 10 or 15 years, because
they are designed to degrade. It’s not that we should
forget about DDT and DDE and all our classics that
have funded our research for so long, but we are
going to have to get smarter in some ways, and look at
effects that may be secondary and tertiary. The
chemical has come in and wiped out the trophic level
or has altered the age structure of the population in
some way - and all we see is the reverberations
beyond that. Perhaps we need to get more
sophisticated in that way. That I think was one of the
major points.
Then it kind of fell apart, I was able to hear three
or four conversations going on at one time as people
talked to their neighbors. And it was fairly interesting.
One interesting thing was that, with 30 or 40 people in
the room, we had about 15 to 20 different definitions
of biomonitoring. But that is OK, because
biomonitoring is any time you use a biological
organism in what you are doing. So biomonitoring
isn’t a particular technique, but is lots of different
ways of asking different questions. The most
important thing is to define carefully the question that
you are trying to answer - which makes it a lot like
traditional science, where you have a question you are
trying to answer, and pick an appropriate tool.
In biomonitoring, sometimes the tool tends to run
the question, instead of like science, where you ask a
question and then try to find the right tool to answer
it. You have a technology, and you have look for
questions to ask. The feeling was, we should start
with the question.
Another question was information , we sometimes
have reams and reams of information,but we don’t
deal with it very well. I know from just a multi-
species toxicity test you can get reams of information,
but what does it all mean?
Sometimes, we want to feel that we are doing the
hardest thing there is to do in science. We work with
the most complicated system, it must be the hardest
thing there is to understand, we may never understand
it! It sounds to me almost like vitalism from the last
century, where life is something unique, and we can’t
hope to understand it, it’s like magic.
As scientists, we don’t believe in magic. There
are ways of handing large amounts of data, and we are
going to hear about some of those this morning. If
astronomers can do it, by golly an ecologist can do it.
We have to get a little smarter and more sophisticated
in how we deal with information.
So that’s something else that came out, we get lots
of information, how do we deal with it, how do we
reduce it to something that really describes the picture
that we are trying to draw.
Following that it came out that there is a severe
lack of communication in biomonitoring, that there is
lots going on, but you can’t find it, or them. There
are lots of biomonitoring programs, but the data gets
put away in NTIS or somewhere else, because no one
is going to publish all the data in a journal. So
sometimes it’s in the grey literature or in someone’s
file somewhere. So there is a feeling sometimes that
there is a strong lack of communication, that there is
information that may be applicable to someone else’s
project, but you can’t get access to it. You can’t find
out what’s been done.
Another thing is that our OA and OC for field
studies isn’t what it should be, like, does anyone else
ever go back and sample the same area? do we have
any sites that we can really use as control sites, where
we know how many animals there are? Or control
plots, where you put animals out there and count
them, to see how good your mark-recapture is. Those
things are often not done, you often don’t have an
idea of your precision or accuracy in a field study.
And you can see that in a stream survey. You don’t
know how many organisms are out there, but you can
replicate it by having one guy go down there, and then
another guy go down there. Someone sarcastically
said, well, then your error bar is going to be like this!.
But at least you have error bars, and have an idea
what kind of information you are drawing your
conclusions from. And I’d just as soon see error bars
that wide. Sometimes the errors in populations tell
you a lot about the contagion of the population, if you
sample through the year they give you some idea of
the boundaries. As Cooper was saying, sometimes you
get oscillations between minimums and maximums,
bounded oscillations. In aquatic systems, I’m used to
that. Spring and fall turnovers, stratifications,
chemistry changes, sometimes things change from
meter to meter. It may be a good idea to have some
34
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
idea of what that fluctuation is for a couple of reasons.
One is, so we don’t draw conclusions that aren’t
justified. Sometimes we draw unjustified conclusions
and a lot of money is spent fixing something that may
not have been broke. So replicability is important,
And, writing down the QA/QC is important, too.
Another important question is, So What ! So you
find a 10% decrease in population, or you find 30%
acetylcholinesterase in blood plasma of an organism is
inhibited, or that they switched on a certain set of
stress proteins. So w iat? It’s not that we don’t think
it is important, but how do you quantify it, or
extrapolate from that to put some kind of economic or
social value on it?
We have seen that in the BEEPOP talk yesterday,
where they put population models, fitting those into
what kinds of effects we are seeing. I’m sure we can
do that on a more molecular level, and the “So what”
question is becoming more and more important. So
what, you find PCB’s in fish tissue. is that really
important or not? I heard one fellow, I’m not sure if
he was being sarcastic or what, but he said, “So what!
I have these regulations I have to meet. That’s what’s
important!” I can understand that, but overall, the so
what questions is, does this really have a significant
biological effect?
We went through lots of research questions. I
made a sarcastic comment about a report I’d read,
about a reference site in Ohio about a reference site,
supposedly the most pristine site in Ohio. Some guys
from Ohio said, “We didn’t say pristine!”
How do you define a reference site ? That’s fairly
important. In science, you should use a control. NSF
has a program where you have reference sites in
different parts of the country, but one reference site is
good only for the area immediately around it. The
point was made that there can be lots of different
kinds of reference sites. There is probably not a
“standard” reference site, a reference site may be good
for only one kind of measurement. For one particular
pesticide, you might use a reference site that doesn’t
have that pesticide, but that doesn’t mean it’s Un-
impacted. If you can find PCB’s in Antarctica, it’s
unlikely that you will find a reference site in North
America that hasn’t been exposed to some kind of
toxicant. But you can use it as a control for the
pesticide you are studying.
Variability in ecosystems . We talked a bit about
that in terms of replicate sampling and so forth.
Ecosystems are variable - they are designed to take
into account the variability in the environment. How
to incorporate that variability into our “so what”
question, to know whether the variability seen in our
physiological, biochemical or behavioral indicators say
something is wrong with the ecosystem.
Extinctions: even though Audubon or Greenpeace
won’t admit it, extinction occurs, even without man.
I’m not saying we don’t accelerate the rate, but it
occurs.
[ There is] variability in population numbers, we
know that, but how do we incorporate it into our
models so as to answer the “so what” questions? How
much of the variability is anthropogenic? Does the
frequency of variation indicate anthropogenic
influence?
Lab to field . What are the things we have to take
into account when we go from lab to field? I said,
sometimes we don’t do very well at that. Anne looked
at me and said, Wayne, you do as well as anyone at
that. You work in the lab, you don’t have any idea
what the relationship to the field is. I said, yeah, give
me money! There are a lot of things like physiology
and behavior that we study in the laboratory so that
we can start to get a handle on it. Now, how do you
extrapolate that to the field. Unless you are in an
experimental lakes area, you don’t just go out and
dose a lake with a pesticide. So how do you get from
the laboratory to the field? The laboratory is not the
reality that we are trying to protect.
Concentration effects . In the laboratory, we write
up protocols to see that we get a good dose-response
relationship. Increase the dose, you get a larger
response. But is that important in biomonitoring.? Is
it important in sampling in the field, that you be able
to tie in a concentration to a certain amplitude in
response? That’s important in the lab. If we get a
nice dose-response curve we say, “Oh, we can publish
this now.” If we don’t, we may have to do some more
concentrations before we have something worth
reporting. But in the field you don’t have that luxury
(implication - your concentrations in the field may not
give you a range of responses). And how do we deal
with secondary and tertiary effects, where the chemical
is no longer there. What you are seeing is the change
in structure from the chemical that was there, perhaps
in the last growing season. The nice thing about the
organochlorines was that if you see an effect you can
still find them, and even if you don’t see an effect, you
can still find them! What are you going to do with a
compound that is more readily degradable, and the
effects you see may not be so straightforward. How
do you tie in a dose-response? I think that’s going to
be real interesting, especially when you take it to
court.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
35
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
That’s our discussion, boiled down to a synopsis,
and I guess what I noticed is that it was a little
chaotic.
One of the things that bothers me is that we don’t
see anyone from DuPont, or from Ciba-Geigy. They
might be able to tell us a little bit about what’s coming
down the line. I think that they have some of the
same fundamental concerns that we do, perhaps from
a slightly different point of view, because the last thing
that they want is to put something out there and then
lose $20 million or so, because it turned out to be bad.
Their points of view would be interesting.
Any questions or comments? Does anyone see
how risk assessment and biomonitoring actually fit in?
I think that is semi-important.
0. I think we do bio-monitoring as a tool to have
something (information) to put into risk
assessment. An interest of mine is quality
assurance. I think the physicists and chemists are
deeply into quality assurance, but you ask a bird
person how they do quality assurance, and they
will say, “well, we use the Scientific Method!’ And
that’s the end of it.
Em the following transcript, extensive discussion of the
process of registration of pesticides, of whether
proprietary information on formulations should be
available to EPA and/or the public, and of, e. g.,
whether field testing should be required prior to
registration is omitted or condensed.]
0. More use should be made of pre-registration data
in deciding which products be an
environmental problem. If we note that a product
has been shown in pre-registration studies to have
an LC 50 of 1 ppm, we would suspect that it may
be causing damage to wildlife. This kind of study
would lead to predictions about which compounds
to monitor for. Also, I think that EPA sometimes
allows compounds to go out even though there is
information pre-registration that suggests they nay
cause environmental damage.
Q. (Firestone) pre-registration field studies are being
done now, but there is no legislative process
requiring that post-registration database be
established and filled in.
Q. (Anne) The legislative authority is present. It is
not being enforced. There is another problem,
that much of the information generated pre-
registration and submitted by the manufacturer, is
confidential for proprietary reasons. Presently,
Risk Assessment occurs pre-registration, and often
post-registration by agencies interested in
environmental hazards posed.by pesticides, and
field data from post-registration studies can be
useful as evidence in the case where a review of
registration is conducted on grounds of possible
environmental risk.
A. The thing that bothers me about that is in the
field studies, it can be claimed that the effect seen
was due to another chemical or some other
environmental factor, particularly if the chemical
is one of those non-persistent ones that we use
today.
0. Is there independent testing done to verify
manufacturers’ submission?
A. (Anne) Only if the EPA reviewers find evidence
that there is some problem with the original
submissions.
(comments: industrial labs under economic
pressures to simplify testing as much as possible.)
Q. I take exception to the comment that methods are
available. Methods may exist, but their availability
is extremely limited. We had to drop some of our
testing because methods were not available to us.
Some of the methods that we used were actually
developed by another EPA section, the industrial
waste section, who was interested in finding
pesticide residues in sludge samples. I believe
the USDA developed their own protocols for their
analysis. In my opinion the most limiting
bottleneck is not in developing field methods, but
in finding those analytical methods.
A. Anne brought up the point that we use
biomonitoring to mean two different things. We
use biomonitoring to measure concentrations, and
we also use it to determine if there is an effect.
You hope that those two are compatible.
Q. We are talking about testing before and after
registration. In a plant testing workshop here in
Corvallis two weeks ago on effects on non-target
species. As a newcomer to the field, it appears to
me that field testing is not done in a regime or by
a means that would give any information on how
those herbicides affect plants in a community.
They are tested in row crops, but they are not
tested in competitive situations such as would exist
in nature.
A. You mean competitive interactions don’t exist in
the laboratory?
36
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Wayne Landis
Q. Row-competitive. So, I don’t think we have the
information necessary to identify the effects that
pesticide would have in the field if we haven’t
tested it in a field situation before registration.
A. Someone Robin, I think, got on my case about the
cost of these protocols that we have to follow.
0. (Robin) Well, the other part of that comment
was, that if you expect people to use standardized
methods, then you should make those
standardized methods available at a very low cost.
Subsidize your journal some other way!
A. Come to the ASTM meeting in Atlantic City:
0. When monitoring for effects, rather than
exposure, for example when we sampled in the
Yakima valley, we found lots of chemicals, DDT,
DDE, and so forth. I am asking, what are the
effects that we found in the Yakima valley .th
are due to those chemicals? and I submit we can’t
answer that question. I think you are proposing a
question an order of magnitude more difficult,
[ saying that] I can take a particular chemical, go
out and apply it in the Yakima Valley, and tell
you what the effects are going to be . Am I
missing something?
A. probably we are not being real!
0. A very important question is mechanism of action
of a compound. We need to know how a
chemical works, at least initially, within an
organism. Knowledge of this sort is essential in
effects bio-monitoring, and it can drive
biomonitoring (design of studies?).
A. Initial mechanisms, such as acute toxicity, may not
be as important as some secondary effects. I just
read a paper indicating that OP’s inhibit DNA
repair. Now, we always assume that the effect of
OP’s is acetylcholinesterase inhibition, but
End of Tape
molecule, now that’s something else that may or
may not have a significant impact. but I’m not
saying that the acute mechanism is the only one
that we need to know. The other thing that
concerns me is the mixture question. We deal
with effluents a lot. Aquatic tox started getting
more and more into biomonitoring because the
organism was answering the mixture question
itself saying, saying, “I’m real sick, I’m going to
die”. Even though you can’t measure anything in
there that’s causing this, you are seeing toxicity.
You see an effect, and it could be due to a
number of compounds.
Q. Measuring exposure and concentrations has the
advantage of giving you hard numbers, so you can
calculate bio-availability and things like that. That
tells you who is at risk, basically, but doesn’t tell
you much about the effects. I notice a tendency
in the discussions about effects to say, well, do
effects and you won’t have to do all that pricey
chemistry. Well, I’m here to tell you that when
you get into court with a bee-kill case, where
you’ve got an effect you’ve got a chemical, at
levels five times the toxic limit for bees, and the
bees all died, there are folks who will still get up
there and tell you, well, we don’t know whether it
was actually this chemical. So I still don’t know
how we get from cause to effect.
0. Well, we talked yesterday about taking a tiered
approach, in which effects monitoring might be a
first step. That also fits with the original idea of
this workshop, which was to talk about a second
kind of monitoring called damage assessment.
We’ve made decisions, up to now, using a lot of
data in terms of cost, but not a lot of data based
on information of the variations on natural
systems. So lets go out and lets see if those
decisions were good ones. And as we do that,
with all the chemicals and formulations available,
we really can’t afford a chemical by chemical
approach. You almost have to look at the
broader effects. They may not be due to
pesticides at all!, but that’s what you have too look
at.
Q. Just to clarify a little bit the work in the Yakima
Basin, that work does not include the tissue
residue work that I talked about yesterday. That
work would mean lot less by it’s self without all
the other monitoring that is being done. We will
be looking at plant communities, invertebrate
communities, fish communities, at the same time
that we are doing the tissue work. We will also
get information on pesticide application,
population changes, water chemistry, sediment
chemistry, and hopefully we will be able to put
these things together into something, well, cause
and effect is the way we would like to go.
A. One thing that we don’t put much of our effort
into is the connection between site of action and
the effects in the ecosystem, and how we get from
one place to the other. We know it happens,but
we don’t put much effort in it. We are talking
about the site of action in the organism, and it’s
effects at the ecosystem level. Environmental
toxicologists don’t seem to look at that very much,
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
37
-------
BIOMONITORING WORKSHOP
We seem to be satisfied with correlational effects.
0. In order to do this deterministic level of process
it takes a very critical level of information. It
takes a critical level of experimentation that most
of us don’t have. What we hope to get out of the
Yakima Survey is evidence from a few of the
levels or bits of information that say, “here is
something that indicates that something is going
on, here is where we should concentrate our
efforts. The survey will hopefully narrow our
focus to a few points where we are likely to get
positive results, and thus we can afford to expend
the extra effort to achieve some deterministic
results. There are really two levels of research
here, the correlational, or where the results are,
and the deterministic, or the process.
A. Yes, which is what we can do at the molecular
level.
0. There is the complication that with some of these
newer herbicides, you may not even be able to
detect the herbicide on the target crop, much less
on the over-sprayed plant. So the thing that
caused the effect may not be around when you
sample.
A. Another problem is the use of adjuncts that
increase the effect. One thing that bothers me is
the fact that all these things eventually get into the
water, and go downhill from there, into the
oceans. A watershed takes stuff up from all land
uses. We are studying water samples right now
with fish, using the cough response, and we find
that even though the fish goes through all of the
cough behavior and respiration changes, that when
we do the chemistry, there is nothing there that
we can detect.
0. It seems to me that our concern about discerning
cause and effect is misplaced. We are doing
principally cx post facto studies right now. It
seems to me that all we have to do is shift our
emphasis and set up appropriate experiments,
where the intent is to show cause and effect
priori , We want to do good treatment replications,
cross-over experiments, and that sort of thing.
A. I think some of that is being done in the
registration process, but I would like to see this
sort of thing being done with several materials
added together, mixture effects and so forth.
[ end of session]
38 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Lichens as Biological Markers
Roger Rosentreter
U S Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Boise, Idaho
ABSTRACT
Lichens have been used as biological indicators and monitors for over a hundred years. Physiological
processes make lichens excellent collectors of atmospheric paiticles and gases. The ubiquitous occurrence of
lichens, as well as their ecological position on a variety of substrates, facilitate their use in many different
regions. Vegetation mapping of lichen species can show the degree and zones of influence of various
chemicals. These biological markers can be less expensive to use than other types of monitoring equipment.
Biological markers monitor 24 hours a day, 7 days a wee/c and can detect the rare or stochastic event of
chemical releases. Some lichen species can be transplanted into an area to evaluate pollution. This
evaluation can va,y from detailed chemical analysis to merely recording weight changes.
INTRODUCTION
In 1866, Nylander was perhaps the
first person to make a definite
statement on the sensitivity of
lichens to a city environment. He
wrote about the impoverished
lichen vegetation near Paris,
France, stating that lichens provide
a means for measuring the quality
of the air. In England, many of
the epiphytic lichens growing on
tree branches were reported to
have been killed by “smoke.” The
first experimental transplanting of
lichens onto trees occurred in
1891. These lichens died shortly
after being placed in sites where
smoke was present.
There has been a general decline
in lichen species and abundance in
many cities. Barkman (1958)
reported a 27% decline in the
species of lichens within the last
century in Denmark. Barkman
developed air pollution sensitivity
ratings for various lichen species.
Epiphytic lichens are especially
sensitive to pollutants. Species
such as Lung lichen (Lobaria), Old
man’s beard ( Brvoria and Usnea) ,
and Shield lichen ( Parmelia ) have
disappeared from many urban
areas (Barkman 1958).
Why Use Lichens as Biomonitors?
Physiology :
Lichens are slow-growing, long-
lived plants with no true roots or
waxy cuticle. These plants filter
out and accumulate chemicals
from the atmosphere. Lichens
growing on tree branches
(epiphytes) receive very little
buffering effect from their
substrate. This makes them
susceptible to atmospheric
pollutants, thus providing excellent
early warning systems comparable
to the canary in the coal mines
warning miners of dangerous
gases. This sensitivity has
increased because, unlike vascular
plants, lichens never shed their
toxin-laden leaves.
Numerous studies have shown that
sulfur dioxide, fluorides, ozone,
heavy metals and other gases
negatively effect lichens, both in
the field and under laboratory
conditions (Gilbert 1965, Nash
1973, LeBlanc and Rao 19’75,
Rosentreter & Ahmadjian 1977,
and Nash 1988). Fields and St.
Clair (1984) found that sulfur
dioxide interfered with normal
photosynthesis and membrane
permeability. Many studies have
established the correlation of
pollutant levels with lichen growth.
Some studies have used fumigation
in the lab while others have used
field transplant studies. Lichens
signal the effects of air pollutants
and are likely to signal the effects
of other perturbations.
Ecology :
In addition to their physiological
susceptibility, lichens occur in
many sensitive ecological locations
which make them well suited as
biomonitors. Lichens grow on
many different substrates including
rocks, soil, trees, shrubs, boards,
and many other man made
structures. In contrast to larger,
more complex organisms such as
trees, they are small, easy to move
about and are suitable for testing
under various laboratory
conditions. Studies involving
lichens can often be accomplished
at much lower costs than studies
on other organisms. Lichens occur
in all types of habitats. For
example, an area lacking trees may
contain lichen species on a fence
post or on a sagebrush shrub.
How To Use Lichens as
Biomonltors
Evaluation methods :
A site can be evaluated by: 1)
recording simple presence or
absence of key lichen species, 2)
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
39
-------
LICHENS AS BIOMONITORS
estimating the percent coverage by
the lichens, 3) measuring the
frequency of specific species, 4)
recording the number of species
present (species richness), or 5)
measuring transplanted lichens for
weight gain or loss. Mapping the
distribution of various lichen
species can demonstrate the zone
of influence of a particular point
source of an air pollutant
(Hawksworth and Rose 1976).
These maps often show a large
area of influence downwind from
known sources of pollution.
Several species of lichens can be
used for this mapping, or a single
common and conspicuous species
can make the mapping relatively
simple and rapid.
Studies may examine the species
composition on a single substrate
such as red oak tree bark or
several substrates may be sampled.
Transplanting branches or tree
bark cores are valuable methods
for biomonitoring due to the
flexibility of moving the transplants
to sites producing a gradient of
conditions for analysis.
Transplanting nylon strings of
lichens and weighing them can be
an accurate measure of
environmental conditions (Denison
1973). Lichens have been
transplanted to evaluate air
pollution. Direct observation and
measuring the increase in area or
diameter using sequential
photographs have been used to
evaluate growth and health of
lichens.
Species Composition
The presence or absence of key
indicator species has been used as
a kind of “litmus paper” to map
levels of sulfur dioxide. As passive
collectors of gases, lichens can
accumulate toxins. These
chemicals can be analyzed directly
or the presence of specific lichen
species can indicate relative
abundances of various known
chemicals. Ryan (1990) has
produced a “Preliminary list of
pollution tolerance of lichen
species” for North American
species. Many other authors
report on pollution sensitivity of
lichens for a given site or smaller
region. Wetmore (1988) and
Hawksworth & Rose (1970)
correlate lichen sensitivity ratings
to definite concentrations of sulfur
dioxide, as specified in those
articles. Many laboratory studies
have shown differential sensitivity
to specific individual pollutants.
However, direct correlation in the
field is much more difficult to
prove due to the cumulative effects
of other chemicals and other
ecological factors.
In field studies near Indianapolis,
Indiana, McCune (1988) found a
correlation between lichen
communities and sulfur dioxide
peaks, while in contrast, ozone
peaks did not correlate with the
lichen communities. Lichen
communities and tree growth have
also been studied in relation to a
point source of pollution by Muir
and McCune (1988). Direct
effects on lichen communities
caused by the application of
pesticides in the forest have not
been studied. It is assumed that
lichens would be sensitive to such
chemicals and may be indicators of
drift or of increases in the general
area being studied. Forest
declines are common in Europe
and North America. Lichens
present in forests have been used
as early warning indicators of
forest dieback (Scott and
Hutchinson 1989).
Chemical Analysis :
Lichen samples can be analyzed in
the laboratory for the presence of
heavy metals (Lawrey and Hale
1979). Analyzing samples of
lichens taken from field sites for
chlorophyll content or electrolyte
leakage has been used as a more
refined indicator to evaluate the
health and vigor of these lichens
(Belnap and Harper 1990, Fields
and St. Clair 1984). One
advantage of these laboratory tests
is that a very small amount of
material is required for analysis
and that monitoring results are
quantitative.
Field Monitoring Methods :
The United States Forest Service
has established a draft “Lichen
Monitoring Protocol” to evaluate
air quality in Class I Air Sheds as
mandated by the Clean Air Act of
1977 (USFS 1987). At this time it
includes four major types of
sampling: 1) lichen plots, on rocks,
2) lichen transects, on trees, 3)
lichen collections, and 4) lichen
transplants (USFS 1988). The first
two methods utilize monitoring of
species composition and frequency
within permatient plots. The
lichen collections are floristic
studies to establish baseline
inventory and flora richness. The
last protocol, lichen transplants,
can provide data on growth or
decline rates and changes in
species composition. Transplants
may be well-suited to pesticide
studies when the area of
application is known.
Pesticides :
Use of lichens to monitor pesticide
application or movement has yet
to be documented. However, the
wide use of lichens as indicators of
other chemicals suggests that they
may be well suited. Drift of a
pesticide over a stream could be
measured by placing a lichen
specimen which is found to be
sensitive to the specific pesticide in
the air space over the stream in
question and observing the lichen’s
health over a period of time.
Transplanted lichens or naturally
occurring individuals may be
affected by a rare or unusual event
which direct observation or spot
testing by expensive equipment
may miss. Many of the lichen
evaluation methods discussed
above are simple and relatively
40
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Rosentreter
inexpensive to conduct. The
ability to detect small amounts of
pesticides is reassuring to the
public. This detection can be of
use for people who want to be
assured that pesticides are not
moving to non-target sites.
SUMMARY
Lichens have been used as a
biological estimation of air
pollution and have potential as
indicators of pesticides in natural
ecosystems. Studies indicate that
the pollution sensitivity of lichens
is relatively high compared to
other plant groups. Similar to
gaseous pollutants, pesticides are
applied aerially and are likely to
be absorbed by plants which are
sensitive to atmospheric chemicals.
Sensitivity scales for specific
pesticides will have to be
developed based on species
richness, community associations
and individual tolerances. It is
also possible to evaluate pesticide
effects by critical appraisal of the
physiological or ecological
performance of a single species
(Seaward 1987).
LITERATURE CITED
Barkman, J. J. 1958.
Phytosociology and ecology of
cryptogamic epiphytes. Assen
(Holland).
Belnap, J. & K. T. Harper. 1990.
Effects of a coal-fired power plant
on the rock lichen PJzizoplaca
melanophthalma: chlorophyll
degradation and electrolyte
leakage. The Bryologist 93(3):
309-312.
Denison, W. C. & S. M.
Carpenter. 1973. A guide to air
quality monitoring with lichens.
Lichen Technology, Inc., Corvallis,
Oregon.
Fields, R. D. & L. L. St. Clair.
1984. The effects of S02 on
photosynthesis and carbohydrate
transfer in the two lichens:
Collema po ycarpon and Pannelia
chlorochroa. Amer. J. Bot. 71(7):
986-998.
Gilbert, 0. L. 1965. Lichens as
indicators of air pollution in the
Tyne Valley. In: “Ecology and the
Industrial Society” (G.T. Goodman
et al., eds.). Oxford University
Press, London and New York. pp.
35-47.
Hawksworth, D.L. & F. Rose.
1976. Lichens as Pollution
Monitors. Edward, London.
Hawksworth, D.L. & F. Rose.
1970. Qualitative Scale for
estimating sulfur dioxide air
pollution in England and Wales
using epiphytic lichens. Nature
(London) 227: 145-148.
Lawrey, J. D. & M. E. Hale, Jr.
1979. Lichen growth responses to
stress induced by automobile
exhaust pollution. Science 204:
423-424.
LeBlanc F. & D. N. Rao. 1975.
Effects of pollutants on lichens an
bryophytes. In: “Responses of
Plants to Air Polution”. (J. B.
Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski eds.)
Academic Press. New York. pp.
237-272.
McCune, B. 1988. Lichen
communities along 03 and SO 2
gradients in Indianapolis. The
Bryologist 91(3): 223-228.
Muir, P. S. & B. McCune. 1988.
Lichens, tree growth and foliar
symptoms of air pollution: Are
the stories consistent? Journal of
Environmental Quality 17(3): 361-
370.
Nash III, T. H. 1973. Sensitivity
of hchens to sulfur dioxide. The
Bryologist 76(3): 333-339.
Nash III, T. H. 1988. Correlating
Fumigation Studies with Field
Effects. Lichens, Bryophytes and
Air Quality. Bibl. Lichenol. 30:
201-216.
Rosentreter, R. & V. Ahmadjian.
1977. Effect of ozone on the
lichen Cladina arbuscula and the
Trebouxia phycobiont of Cladina
stellans. The Bryologist 80(4):
600-605.
Ryan B. 1990. Preliminary List of
Pollution Tolerance of Lichen
Species. Unpublished. Arizona
State University. Tempe, AZ.
Scott, M. G. & T. C. Hutchinson.
1989. Experiments and
observations on epiphytic lichens
as early warning sentinels of forest
decline. Nat. Academy Press: 205-
215.
Seaward, M. R. D. 1987. Effects
of quantitative and qualitative
changes in air pollution on the
ecological and geographic
performance of lichens. Pages In:
Hutchinson, T. C. & K. M.
Meema (eds.), Effects of
atmospheric pollutants on forests,
wetlands and agricultural
ecosystems. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin. pp. 439-450.
USFS. 1987 (Draft). Jarbidge
Wilderness: A Class I Airshed.
Jarbidge Ranger District,
Humboldt National Forest,
Nevada.
USFS. 1988. (Draft). Lichen
Monitoring Protocol, Methodology
Development Region 5 Air
Resource. Prepared by The
Lichen Protocol Team. Sept. 21,
1988.
Wetmore, C. 1988. Lichen floristics
and air quality. In: Nash III & V.
Wirth (eds.) Lichens, Bryophytes
and Air Quality. Bibi. Lich. 30 J.
Cramer, Berlin. pp. 55-66.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
41
-------
Bees as Biomonitors for Ecological Risk Assessments
Jerry J. Bromenshenk
Division of Biological Science, University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana 59812
Honey, bumble, leafcutting alkali and other bees are indispensible pollinators of many ecosystems.
Pollination efficacy can be altered by natural factors such as weather, parasitism, predation, and disease or
by anthropogenic intrusions such as pesticides, industrial pollutants, and hazardous wastes. As part of the
pesticide registration process, FIFRA requires testing to evaluate toxicity and hazards to these ecologically
and economically important organisms. This has resulted in the development of standardized procedures for
assessing chemical hazards and in a substantial toxicology data base. In addition, bees have been utilized as
exposure and effects monitors of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in ecosystems ranging from semi-arid
deserts to forests, in urban and rural settings, and in agricultural lands. Spatial scales have varied from a
few meters to landscapes and regions; temporal scales from hours to years. Assessment endpoints include
responses at levels ranging from the oiganismal and suborganismal through populations and communities
and employ measures of bioaccumulation and other biomarkers of exposure, as well as changes in
population composition, size and function. Over the past ten years, we have developed specialized
equipment and refined procedures for sampling bees and measuring these responses. To increase data
comparability and to assure data quality, we generated a set of recommended assessment protocols. To
better use and interpret this monitoring information, we developed an ecotoxicological model: PC BEEPOP,
a honey bee population dynamics model and dose-response database. The model is particularly useful for
associating exposures and effects and for delineating responses to natural versus anthropogenic stressors.
The abilities and limitations of this approach will be illustrated by case studies and will be discussed in the
context of application to risk assessments.
Questions for Jerry Bromenshenk
0. How is the spatial distribution of activity for bees
determined for a given spot?
A. Well, as you well know, bees forage extensively,
although they do have a tendency to conserve
energy by not foraging any farther then they have
to. You can do this in a couple of ways. If you
do a broad screen, where you are just trying to
look at a large area, then we can establish sites
where we intentionally overlap foraging areas.
That’s what we’ve done for example in the Puget
Sound area. We have a paper in Science that
deals with that. If you are dealing with a more
localized area you can look at what crops or
plants are in blossom. You can pick up a pollen
sample at the hive, look at that sample and know
exactly what plants they’ve been to. Now, if Oak
Ridge National Laboratories gets additional
funding, we’ll actually be able to follow a bee,
because they’ve already got an infra-red
transmitter that a bee can carry. We just ran out
of money before they could get an affordable
receiver.
0. I read somewhere that they were putting little
coding strips like they have in the grocery store on
bees.
A. That’s a mark-capture-recapture procedure that
Jerry Loper at the Tucson Carl Hayden Bee
research lab came up with. He actually got an
award from Mechanix Illustrated for the most
unique technology. Unfortunately, it doesn’t
work. The bar code reader has to have a unique
orientation, and the bees don’t cooperate well
enough in terms of how they go in. There are
ways to mark bees, though, using a little magnetic
tag. We’ve done that for a long time. You catch
them out in the field when they are foraging, glue
a little magnet on them and attach a giant magnet
back at the hive. When the bee flies in, he gets
caught, wiggles around a little bit and the bee
drops off and the tag remains behind.
42
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Applying Risk Assessment to Ecological Communities 1
an edited transcript of remarks by
William Cooper
Chairman, Department of Zoology, Michigan State University
Member, EPA Science Advisory Board
Chair, Ecology and Welfare Subcommittee
of the
Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee
This morning I discussed the
risk assessment approach adopted
by the Science Advisory Board’s
Subcommittee on Ecology and
Welfare (the committee). This
afternoon I will talk about some of
the methods of actually
implementing risk assessment from
the point of view both of ecology
and the welfare economics
component.
You will remember from this
morning we were asked not only
to do ecological risk assessment,
but also welfare risk assessment
and somehow put the two
together, actually combine the two
evaluations in terms of ecological
versus human impacts, the logic
being that if the scientist can’t do
it, the politicians and lawyers will
because they don’t have a choice.
Someone is going to have to
integrate that information, to
figure out the priorities as we
reallocate our effort [ to reduce the
risks we incur from human
activities.] I will discuss how we
did this, and include some of the
comments I heard from the
speakers this morning. As
ecologists we don’t always look at
things the same way that the
general public does. I’ll use some
examples I’ve heard to illustrate
that.
I said this morning that the
committee was very dissatisfied
with the original structure that
they started out with in terms of
ecological risk assessment. WeH,
they totally rebelled at the way
economists do business. They had
absolutely no desire to go through
and critique the normal type of
economic analysis of basic
ecological resources. There is
such a big difference in the way
economists think and the way
ecologists think in terms of looking
at long term commitments to
natural resources that they are two
completely foreign languages with
almost no overlap.
Now, this sounds kind of
abrasive, and the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) traditionally has
been a non-combatant, non-
abrasive kind of organization that
tries to write documents that
everyone can agree to. We were
accused of being anarchists, but
quite franldy, made a very strong
argwnent that this was the one
forum in which you could
challenge the economists’ way of
valuing environmental resources,
because for about 50 years we
have been sidestepping that issue.
Can you go out and do economic
cost-benefit ratios, of any kind of
credible sense at all, when you’re
talking about the future allocation
of scarce natural resources? It’s
not a new field. I’ve spend a lot of
time arguing about this with
economists over the years, and the
typical attitude is, Cooper, you’re a
good guy, but you are a very slow
learner. And basically, they have a
paradigm that they don’t want to
give up, because they can
parametize it. They can come up
with numbers, and once they come
up with a number they are socially
safe, in terms of making any
qualitative judgement that they can
be criticized for.
In the same way I’ve heard
people this morning say we’ve got
to come with numbers on risk
assessment. Once we come up
with a number somehow it’s more
analytical, it’s more defensible, it’s
less value-driven. And yet you
know as a scientist that those
numbers are purely generated,
with no value to them whatsoever,
that you are deluding yourself to
think that a good qualitative gut
judgement isn’t better. It makes
more sense. It’s probably more
defensible.
It’s really become a basic
intellectual challenge, and so we
threw down the gauntlet, and the
economists picked it up, and quite
frankly this is the most contentious
thing we did. We are forming a
committee now, at our request,
through the SAB, to see “how you
do this if you gotta do it.”
I had an eight member task
force, and there were no
1 The following is an edited transcript from a tape recording of Dr. Cooper’s remarks at the conference. The editor
accepts responsibility for any errors or perversions of meaning. - Michael Marsh.
HOW CAN ThEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
43
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
economists on it, not be default,
but by design. You might say that
this is an arrogant attitude, but the
position is, you want to combine
ecologic risks with welfare, with
economic risks. We know that you
can’t re-design the time-space
dimensionalities of ecological
feedbacks. We can’t re-engineer
geo-chemical cycles. You can’t
speed up the rate of succession.
As far as we know, you are not
going to speed up the rate of
evolution, which is the normal
feedback mechanism that gives you
repair, mitigation that takes care
of major disruptions.
This means that if you are
going to do an analysis because of
long-term externalities, of negative
feedbacks, coming through either a
biological loop or a geo-chemical
ioop, you are going to have to do
your economic analysis in the
same time-frame that we do our
scientific analysis, and since we
can’t change those, there is
nothing the ecologist can do. The
economists are going to have to
redesign the way they do business.
And I don’t need an economist on
the panel to tell them that. That’s
a physical constraint they are going
to have to learn to adjust to, so
that’s the very kind of single
minded attitude we took. From a
physical scientist’s point of view,
that makes an awful lot of sense.
An economic system is man-
made, it can be man-re-made. In
ecological systems we have very
little ability to redesign some of
the spatial and temporal
characteristics that we are dealing
with.
What are the characteristics
that make our economic system ill
suited to the valuing of ecological
resources? We listed about 5
points in our report.
First of all, the whole concept
of discount theory. This concept
says that natural resources have
j value in the future if you don’t
use them today, it’s a lost
opportunity cost. The concept that
a biological resource or landscape,
just because humans have no way
of assessing value, not only does it
no value, but it degrades with
time, is nonsensical. You get into
that kind of mental trap when you
look at resources as a surrogate
for money. This mindset says that
if you harvest resources now and
invest the profits in the bank, with
compound interest, then you are
going to make more money than if
you harvested them ten years from
now. It’s as simple as that.
If you look at environmental
resources as capital , not money,
you invest the capital so you have
sustainable flows of goods and
services for your grandkids’
generation. You don ‘t need to
show benefits today. You won’t
live long enough to see the
benefits. That’s why we invest in
R & D in industry - so we can be
competitive with the Japanese two
generations from now. You don’t
have to justify it on short term
yields. Just that one concept
alone. If you could just get people
to thinking in terms of air and
water and biotic resources as
environmental capital, as
infrastructure - infrastructure so
that you can maintain either a high
quality of environmental health, or
a sustainable level of economic
activity. You require that
infrastructure to be stable in time.
That’s what sustainable
development means. You are not
going to maintain either an
economic or a human health
quality system without a
sustainably high quality
environment.
I was on thc team that went
over to Poland a couple of years
ago with several people from EPA.
We were asked by the Academy to
go over and assess the air and
water pollution problems in
Poland. It was before they tore
down the wall. It was my first
experience in recent years over
there. I came back and I was
appalled. Poland was the worst
polluted country that I have ever
seen in my life. 40% of the cities
did not have primary sewage
treatment. They have two rivers,
and about 80% of the surface
water does not even fit the lowest
water quality criteria. It’s in a
category that you can’t even use it
for industry without pre-treating it.
I mean I’m talking about a real
cesspool, because they didn’t even
put a single dollar into
environmental infrastructure. You
are not going to re-build Poland
until you re-invest in the pipes and
valves that it’s going to take to
have something to build on. It’s as
simple as that.
First of all, this whole concept
of discount theory is just turned
around backwards. You are
talking about a stewardship
mentality, not an ownership
mentality. There’s a whole lot
written on this. We run
environmental criteria(?) in
Michigan on a public trust
doctrine. You don’t own water in
my state. That’s the public
domain. It’s not even stewardship,
it’s user rights. You have to put it
back in the same river in exactly
the same quantity and quality that
you got it, downstream riparian
owners have the same rights that
you have. That’s what you mean
by sustainability, and it implies a
completely different ethic in the
way you look at the management,
the ownership, the long term
obligations, and the evaluation of
the value of resources. They have
value intrinsic to themselves.
Whether you use them or not is
quite immaterial. Whether you
know how to value them or not, is
quite immaterial. Now that’s not a
trivial challenge to an economist.
The second characteristic is
basically the whole concept of
multipliers. They are applied in a
one-sided manner, in that
44
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
multipliers are used to calculate
benefits, but never to calculate
risks. I chaired the environmental
review board for the state of
Michigan for 14 years under two
governors. We ran all the public
hearings on all the state and
federal EIS’s for the prisons,
incinerators, landfills, all the
contentious issues. I sat through
several hundred of these debates.
As an example, General Motors
wanted to build a Cadillac plant in
downtown Detroit. They kicked
6,500 people out of their homes,
and justified it economically. The
city gave the land over to GM so
they could keep GM in Detroit
and keep competitive with the
Japanese. The whole argument
was in terms of economic benefits,
and they used a multiplier of 4 to
5. General Motors proposed to
spend some 200 million dollars
building a plant. Coleman Young
justified it economically terms of
public funds; he multiplied it by
five, and said the real benefit was
five times $200 millions, because
he calculated all the secondary and
tertiary benefits, and all the spin-
offs, the garages and mechanics
and restaurants that support the
laborers.
But when you get around to
calculating the economic dis-
benefits, the environmental
unpacts of development, I’ve never
ever seen them use the same logic.
When we used kepones on the
James River in Virginia, the dollar
value of the kepone and the loss of
the shellfish, fm-fish and the crabs
in the James River was stated as
the dollar value of one year’s crop
not sold. They didn’t calculate the
outboard motors that weren’t
made in Wisconsin and the fishing
lures that weren’t made in
Chicago, and the refrigerated
trucks that couldn’t take the
jimmies up to the bars in
Maryland, etc., etc. It’s a-
symmetrical, and as long as you
allow that to continue you are
always going to underestimate the
environment. Reduce it to nothing
in this generation and pass the real
loss on to the next generation. It’s
bad economics and bad ecology,
because it’s a-symmetrical.
The third big challenge that we
had in risk assessment is the way
we go about valuing, and who is to
pay, for the use of goods and
services from natural environments
which traditionally have had no
value put on them. Almost all
those goods and services are
outside the marketplace. Those
bees that are pollinating your
flowers, the bacteria recycling your
pesticides in the soil. Your plants
recycling CO 2 into oxygen. Those
are what we call free goods. They
are non-market goods and services
that humans take for granted.
You couldn’t live without them
and you don’t pay a dollar for
them.
How are you going to put a
value on something that’s outside
the market exchange place. The
only way you can do it is to have
the concept of willingness to pay.
The value of a fish is how much
someone is willing to pay to go
catch one. The willingness for you
to go out and enjoy a national
park without impaired air pollution
- without impaired vistas degrading
your experience. It’s how much
time, energy and money you spend
to go out and look at it.
Now, that’s got all kinds of
problems. It can give you a
number. You can generate a
number from it. We can go into
court and we argue the dollar
value of a fish in a pollution case -
it’s crazy as a coot, because it’s
entirely prefabricated numbers.
You can even go so far as to
estimate the value of an alewife
that some pump-storage unit
chews up. Now an alewife doesn’t
have much value. It’s a grubby
little fish about that big, but if you
calculate how many alewives a big
salmon has to eat to get big, and
how much you are willing to pay
to catch a big salmon, and back-
calculate, you can find the value of
an alewife. I mean, you go
through all kinds of convoluted,
crazy, estimates of dollar values.
So, first of all, they are
surrogate values at best. There is
no logical basis for them. The
second thing is, I don’t really know
how people can know the value of
a resource until you lose it. A
concept in economics is, as the
scarcity goes up, the prices go up,
and you shift to an alternative
material. The concept is you can
substitute! When you start talking
about groundwater, or air, or food
without toxicants in it, you don’t
have the ability to substitute.
There are certain kinds of
ecological amenities, or goods and
services, for which there are no
alternatives. So what happens to
the value of a substance? The
value as it grows scarce goes to
infinity, doesn’t it?
People asked why we valued
groundwater the way we did.
Groundwater comes out on the
bottom of our list ecologically
because there is no exposure.
When you pollute groundwater, it
comes into contact with some
anaerobic microbes, but there’s no
biology down there to speak of.
Oh, there are some insects that
live down in the gravel, but not in
terms of any major exposure. By
the time it comes to the surface
it’s usually in an up-welling area,
and there’s such a dilution factor,
once it comes up in a river course
or goes out in the Great Lakes or
Chesapeake Bay from
groundwater, that you can hardly
even pick it up. Any time you find
a pollutant in ground water, at
least in our state the first thing
you do is come in with federal or
state superfund money, slap a
fence around it, put in an
alternative water supply, and you
can’t even show human exposure.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
45
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
So the whole argument is, what
we are going to do is preserve
groundwater as a potable water
supply for future generations. So
where should it show up? It
should show up in the welfare
analysis as a high priority thing
shouldn’t it? Cause the benefits
aren’t for today, we can still
substitute today, at least for a
while. Most people aren’t
drinking contaminated
groundwater for very long, at least
where I’ve worked. You sue the
industry, they bring in a pipe, no
mater how far it is, and put you on
an alternate water supply. But
when it comes putting a value on
it, groundwater doesn’t show up,
because if you discount things at
3% a year, and if you don’t need
that groundwater for 20 years, it’s
got no value. You are in a catch-
22 no matter how you do it.
And that’s why [ in] every one
of these analyses, whether Human
Health (subcommittee) did it or
we did it, groundwater is an
outlier. You want to jack it up
there, because most of us have
spent most of our professional
lives trying to protect groundwater.
That’s how a lot of people started
in this business. And it’s really
tough to go out there and say, on
hard data, if you really want to
talk about risk, it becomes a non-
issue. It’s not a non-issue
politically, and it’s not a non-issue
in terms of good management of
natural resources,for future
options, we’re fully committed to
that, but try to show it in good
hard dollars and cents.
This is causing the water
people at EPA to have real
heartburn right now. Cause if they
shift over and start doing this on
real performance criteria of
reducing risk, how can you reduce
risk if you don’t have any exposure
to start with, and so I point this
out as a real battle; we haven’t
resolved that one yet. Just so you
know where everyone is coming
from.
So we threw out traditional
economics on three issues. And if
you do that, you are going to have
to come up with an alternative. So
this is an ecologist’s alternative
look at welfare economics. This is
what we gave them. We said you
can throw it out, modify it, tell us
what’s wrong with it. At least it’s
a way of keeping the dialogue
going. So it wasn’t all negative.
We actually defined four kinds
of welfare impacts if you are
looking at risk assessment.
1. The first one was ecological
quality. This has to do with the
use of biological resources
[ through] direct consumption by
humans. I mentioned this morning
the PCB’s on the fish in the Great
Lakes, the salmon. They don’t kill
the fish. You cannot show . y
ecological impact on those fish at
these concentrations. It’s
somewhere between 2 to 5 ppm
(parts per million). Even up to 10
to 15 ppm you couldn’t show
biological effects., but since the
action level for PCB is 2 ppm, for
the last 10 years we’ve buried
every salmon we caught in the
weirs in landfill. That is, the
biggest impact has been economic,
not ecologic, on humans. That’s a
welfare impact, on humans. It’s
modulated through an ecologic
process, food chain accumulation.
So the stress or the risk to that is
an ecologically modulated effect. I
can calculate the risk just as I can
calculate any type of ecological
risk. I’m adding apples to apples.
You can put it into a context in
which you can make them be one
and the same kind of analysis.
In fact, if you look at it, the
vast majority of chemical pollution
events, like kepone, like PDB, like
PCB’s, the mercury, Lake St. Clair,
for every single one of those you
can’t show long term effects on
ecologic resources. The bulk of
the thing is an interruption of
economic use of the resource. It’s
not a biologic degradation of the
resource. It’s not a degradation in
the sense that there aren’t
reproductive populations. I’m sure
they are down in numbers, and
they are sick, but even at the
height of kepone in the James
River (it’s one of the most toxic of
chemicals, and we got about 80,000
lb of it in there), every species that
was supposed to live in the James
River we found living there. And
they’re coming back. The kepone
is now getting buried in the
natural sediments; in fact, the
striped bass are better there than
they ever were.
So if you really look at it, one
of the biggest impacts in terms of
risk is not necessarily biological,
because what’s happening
historically, is that EPA has been
sort of a quasi-public health
organization that started with the
assumption that if you protect
public health you will protect these
resources by default. And
oftentimes they have, because they
set the numbers so low, with their
various safety factors and their
various kinds of risk assessments,
based on human health, that the
numbers are way below lethal level
for organisms. The only exception
to that, that i’ve personally worked
with is tributyl tin. TBT is the
first chemical that we banned.
EPA didn’t ban it, the states did,
because EPA didn’t move fast
enough. Michigan was one of
them. Virginia started it. The
first chemical that was banned
strictly on ecological data alone,
without using human health as a
surrogate argument, was tributyl
tin. It is toxic as the devil, and it
makes female snails turn into
males
(tape turned over here)
46
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
economic impact in terms of
degradation before you see the
species gone, all right?
2. The next one, resource
sustainability, deals with a
structural configuration. This is
what you mean by biological
diversity, conservation biology.
There are certain landscape
attributes that are not only
biological, a big trend now is
landscape ecology. There are also
things such as size and spatial
layout of these biological things
that make landscape ecologically
stable. This is what you mean by
sustainability, from the point of
view of the environment. It’s a
perpetuation not only of the
individual species, but their spatial
distributions, because as they
interact in time, the probabilities
of their interactions are the spatial
distributions between them.
There is a whole area of
landscape ecology right now that
says you can’t do your risk
assessment just by looking at a
population. I just came back from
Florida and a meeting with Larry
Harris, who wrote the book on the
fractured forest out here in
Oregon. and we went around the
Everglades. Florida had just
passed an amazing piece of
legislation called Proposition 2,000.
It’s a public bond issue- they are
bonding themselves, and they are
going to spend $300,000,000 every
year for the next 10 years just
buying land to buffer fragile
ecological systems to protect them.
They are buying lands around the
Everglades to take them out of the
agriculture, to keep the
phosphorus from the cane fields,
from allowing the cattails to take
over the Everglades lock stock and
barrel as a monoculture. Which is
what is happening right now. The
same thing in Barrier Island (?),
getting corridors to connect
patches, so that in the aggregate
we have enough land area to
support species like the Florida
panther. That is, the wetlands arc
protected by law. You can’t
protect the wetlands if you don’t
protect the buffers around them.
The wetland is not an integral
patch by itself. So you have to get
your risk assessment up above the
individual species population.
If you really want to talk about
preserving biological diversity,
you’ve got to preserve the habitat
for that biological diversity, and it’s
a much bigger area than people
give you credit for. In fact, the
original work was down here in
Oregon, that Larry Harris has
done, looking at photographs of
Oregon as they lumbered it, where
you had a contiguous forest and
you started getting patches and
patches and smaller patches, and
how are you ever going to get that
back. Well, you can’t get it back,
but you can hook it up with
corridors, where the organisms can
move between the patches until
the thing is a whole, has an area
big enough to survive in. This is a
concept we used in Costa Rica,
where they just bought the
corridors to connect up the
national parks, It’s been used in
Africa, it’s being used all over the
place. It’s that kind of landscape
perspective which lets you see the
structural underpinning of the
thing. If you open up the habitat
you can’t protect the species,
whether or not you have chemical
stressors. and that’s that whole
extra dimension of risk assessment
that we talked about, that has
nothing to do with command and
control, what number you put on a
pesticide, what number you put on
a herbicide or something like that.
It’s more agricultural policy, it’s
the way you treat land. You can’t
separate that from the kind of risk
assessment that you look at.
3. The third category basically, is
what the economists have
traditionally done. This is the
direct economic effect, the things
you put dollars and cents on. This
is the effects of acid rain on the
marble statue. You can calculate
the cost of replacing the marble
statue. That’s a nice marketable
good. You can calculate the cost
of marble and the labor and so on,
and put a dollar sign on that.
I’m not so sure where you can
put the dis-benefit dollar sign, but
this is where my criticism comes in
about discount theory, about
multiplier effects, because at least
if you are going to economics,
you should do economics.
The first two are ecological
phenomena, this one is a pure
economic thing. And so if you are
going to do it, do it right, or don’t
do it at all, don’t even do that one.
Don’t do cost benefit analysis if
you can’t do good cost benefit
analysis.
An alternative is to argue
everything philosophically. Argue
it all on public trust, ethics, legal
protection. Make it an
environmental bill of rights, where
you spell it all out in degrees
centigrade, in parts per million, in
decibels Then you’ve got it cold,
you enforce it, irrespective of
economics. That’s an alternative
paradigm.
The idea about using economics
is that it is the most efficient way
to go, assuming that you get the
right weights, the right signals, you
can put the right values on things.
If you .ç do that it is a very
dangerous way to go.
4. The last one is to me the most
difficult one for you to handle.
And this is the impacts that are
directly on humans, not on dicky-
birds and fish, but they don’t have
direct economic value, And this is
called social nuisance law.
Probably about 80% of the
environmental impact statement
hearings and social hearings that
I’ve run, this is where the issues
are. Noise, odors, vistas, the
sensory stuff. It does not affect
human health, you are not going
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
47
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
to die from it. You are just mad,
you are unhappy, In fact, we got
mt a big debate over whether we
should include fear and anxiety. If
you are living next to a big land
fill, you are not going to smell it,
you are not going to see it,
necessarily, if you put a fence
around it, you are not going to
hear it, but just the knowledge that
it is there is a hell of a stressful
thing to a lot of people, so we
even had a big debate whether we
should put that in there.
Take hydrogen sulfide. They
want to build a hog hotel; 40,000
pigs in ten acres of land. Did you
ever see one of those things: about
4 acres of open lagoons on a good
July day? because a pig produces
about 3 times the urine and feces
of a human. No treatment, just
open lagoons, and in the
wintertime they spray it out on the
cornfields. The smell is
unbelievable. The neiglibors were
mad as could be, and these were
agricultural people, mad at
agricultural people. But that same
chemical if you are down wind
from a sour gas well, smells like
profits. Exactly the same rotten
egg small, exactly the same
chemical.
So here you’ve got exactly the
same chemical, exactly the same
odor, and depending on who you
are, it’s 180 degrees out of phase
as to the perception of whether it’s
good or bad. Now how do you
deal with a problem like that?
Maybe you can’t. Maybe that’s
why you go to courts of law. But
there’s an awful lot of people who
feel that that’s the major issue, in
terms of risk assessment, social
issues. In fact, when the state of
Vermont set up their risk
reduction process that we talked
about this morning - they are
halfway through it, the same thing
you guys did in Region 5 - they set
up a committee just for quality of
life. That’s what they meant by
quality of life, and it was the most
important social set of questions
that they were concerned about:
that Vermont was a beautiful
pristine state, and they wanted to
keep it that way. And they were
far more concerned about this
class of impacts, of risks and
impacts, than all the rest of the
issues.
And that’s the one that, maybe
the social scientists can handle it,
but it’s the one that people like
myself, and most of the chemists
and engineers that 1 know, had no
way of addressing. You can
understand it, but how do you put
any weights on it? How do you
weigh whether this is as important
or not as important as these
things? So that’s the one, I think,
where you are going to have the
greatest trouble. You can define
them qualitatively, but to handle
them in any kind of a ranking
sense, I don’t know.
Just a few more comments and
I’ll stop, because I’m out of time.
One of the comments this morning
was that ecological systems are
basically driven from the bottom,
by bacteria and algae. That’s
correct. We talked about it at
lunch, that if you look at the
energy budget of an ecosystem the
vast majority of your energy goes
from plants right into microbes. It
doesn’t go up to the animal system
at all. A very small percent of it.
In fact when they did the IBP
budget for the grassland biome at
Fort Collins, they had a great big,
eight digit energy budget of
calories per year going through
this meter squared, and to even
get birds to show it you have to be
two places to the right of the
decimal place, to even get them
into the equation. But don’t kid
yourself, they have a big impact in
terms of a control system
modulating what other species are
there.
So there are examples of top
down impact. Everything doesn’t
come from the bottom up. I
happen to be working now on
Lake Victoria in east Africa, which
went anaerobic three years ago,
unfortunately, and we are looking
at the biggest mass extinction of
vertebrate species anywhere in the
world. They have about 500
species of haplochromids and
Tilapia, and most of these are
mouth breeders, they are very
endemic within the lake, they are
bottom breeders, and the lake is
anaerobic now up to about 28
meters. We may have lost about
350 to 400 species already. The
whole lake now is in the Red Book
of endangered species of
vertebrates. We just stumbled on
it by chance, in fact we’ve got a
team over there right now, with an
ROV to do some underwater
exploration.
It looks like that change was
driven from the top down, it was
the introduction of the Nile perch
there in the ‘60’s. I went over
there thinking it was Lake Erie
again, with phosphorus
eutrophication and agricultural and
industrial runoff. It didn’t appear
to be, from what we could see, any
of that. It looks like a top down
thing. They introduced this great
big 250 lb predator, riverine fish,
for sport, and wholly wiped out the
commercial fishery, the big tilapia,
that made up the bulk of the
human food chain; it was the
forage base. They are all eating
bluegreen algae. It’s a nitrogen
limited lake, not a phosphorus
limited lake, so we were wrong in
terms of eutrophication. And the
zooplankton in these tropical lakes
are little tiny things, like that, so
they can’t eat the big bluegreens,
so the only foraging base in water
column was these big tilapian fish,
which are wiped out by the Nile
perch. Chlorophyll has gone up
fourfold in the 15 years. The
bottom of that lake is 24 degrees
C., so the algal rain down there
has tied up all the oxygen, it’s all
gone anaerobic.
48
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
These are the kinds of events
that you start predicting now. And
actually if you look at that kind of
catastrophic impact, almost every
one that I know of has not been
chemicals, it’s been biological
introductions. The alewives and
sea lamprey in my Great Lakes,
the Nile perch over there, the
kudzu weed, the nutria in the cane
fields in the gulf, you can go right
down the list, and actually we’ve
done far more damage in terms of
ecological structure and long term
damage impacts on ecological
landscapes by biological
introductions than with all the
chemicals summed up. And yet
that’s the one thing that you very
seldom ever see in environmental
impact or risk assessment.
Probably the biggest thing your
chemical stressors do is weaken
structure of the system such that it
increases the probability of an
exotic introduction. It’s the exotic
introductions, the secondary
impacts, that do most of the
damage. But that’s an area that I
don’t think I’ve ever, in the
hundreds of EIS’s that I’ve looked
at, even heard discussed, in terms
of secondary impact.
With that, I think I’ll stop. Any
questions?
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
49
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Questions for William Cooper
0. In terms of introductions, and change in
ecosystems, I’ve heard some rather dire predictions of
what the zebra mussel might do to the Great Lakes
and elsewhere.
A. Well there’s no question, the zebra mussel is just
one of a whole number of these things. They were
dumb enough to - sterilize the ballast water, they load
a boat in Germany with fresh water, and they come
across the ocean, don’t blow it in the Hudson River
and fill it with salt water but come up to Cleveland
and blow it there. It was just an accident waiting to
happen. It’s crazy and we’ve been fighting that for
years, and the Coast Guard says , we don’t have the
manpower to enforce it. We’ll make it voluntary.
And you know damned well that a ship captain is not
going to spend eight hours doing something
voluntarily. So now they wait until you g t a “60
Minutes” item. Now they have to retrofit the system
and make it mandatory that they do it.
Yeah, the zebra mussel - Lake Erie is as clean as
it’s ever been. There’s no algae left. You can see the
bottom for the first time, because they just filter every
damned thing out of that. So there goes the whole
plankton base to support your fresh water fishery. It’s
one of the best wall eye, small mouth, yellow perch
fisheries in North America. These things are bound
to have an impact. Now, it will seek its own
equilibrium eventually. But in the transition, there’ll
be problems; they won’t be biologic, they’ll be
economic.
There are some ducks that eat zebra mussels.
They have come up with a couple of exotic compounds
that do the job now, actually tributyl tin (laughter) is
the best compound. If you paint those shiny hulls of
ships and those pipes and intakes with tributyl tin, you
won’t have anything living on them. I’ll guar antee
you! They’ve painted 5 ships from the Fifth Fleet and
put them in Norfolk, which is a warm marine, highly
polluted estuary, and for seven years they didn’t have
anything , algae, diatoms, barnacles, about nine phyla
wouldn’t grow on it. Shows you something about
tributyl tin. There’s a simple solution, but they aren’t
going to get a chance to use it.
Q. With regard to weakening of the ecosystem -
pesticides - natural systems, the perch.
A. My comment should have been should have been,
any stress - it could have been the effect of any stress,
whether it’s pesticides, thermal pollution, over-fishing,
In the case of alewives and sea lamprey it was
probably over-fishing, they opened up the niche. Put
that in stress. Whether a pesticide is a stressor or not
really wasn’t the point I am making. Almost any
stress, be it chemical, thermal, anthropogenic or any
kind of over-exploitation, that is probably the biggest
risk that comes out of it. It’s almost never analyzed in
any kind of risk assessment. The same thing would
probably be true with your clear cutting, if you just left
it up for grabs afterwards, without any kinds of control
strategy. Ecological systems, if they have good
sizeable endemic populations with good normal age
distributions that don’t oscillate wildly, and good
competitive, competition is a very dominant
protection. It’s very difficult to introduce an exotic in
a very well designed and healthy ecosystem.
Q. I don;t think the plant ecology data supports that
view.
A. Well the animal data does, They tried to introduce
rabbits 7 times in Australia, they tried to introduce
salmon in the 1900’s at least a half dozen times in
Michigan, couldn’t get them to take. I don’t know
why the plant data wouldn’t necessarily do the same
thing, but iE’s definitely true of the animal data that I
know of. It’s tough to introduce into a good, healthy
system.
What’s the possibility that an exotic species
would be pre-adapted to be more competitive in a
system that it had never seen than an endemic. Just
mathematically that would be a very low probability,
wouldn’t it?
0. A lot of vegetation is more adaptable -
A. They are more plastic?
Q. If you transport them to similar climatic regions
they escape the pests -
A. Well., sure, that’s true of animals too. Even with
the animals the biological control is not there, but the
competition still is. The only way you would find that
out is to find vegetation array that hasn’t been cut,
hasn’t been managed in terms of species composition,
a little pristine one, and stick a new species in there
and watch it. Most of what we are familiar with is so
disrupted that you cojldn’t test that theory out
anyway. At least in my part of the country they
burned everything before they did any protection, and
so the whole thing is disrupted, it’s a kind of moot
argument in one sense. So at best our system is
bounded chaos and always will be in our lifetime.
There’s no such thing as stability.
50
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
0. I think there’s a difference between systems that
normally are disturbed by fire, and, essentially,
clearcutting, and the Pacific Northwest forests are
adapted with typical species to occupy those niches
after you have a windstorm or blowdown, fire.
Something that basically clears the land, as opposed to
a pesticide, that comes in and kills everything There’s
no plant, no organism adapted to take advantage of
that kind of clearing that occurs with a pesticide.
A. Yeah, thats just coming out. I just reviewed a
paper for Conservation Biology on a theoretical model
looking at the magnitude, frequency, intensity and
location of stresses in terms of stabilizing landscapes.
Fires in Yellowstone, avalanches, floods, and yet you
have to have both the area that instigates it, the area
that exports it, and you have to have a boundary
around it, and they’re looking at the kind of area that
you have to have to manage it, in terms of biological
species. You’ve got to manage the frequency, the
location, the intensity of the disruption. All these
systems are disrupted systems, and if you try to
maintain them by putting them on the shelf like
Yellowstone, you are just asking for disaster. Smokey
the Bear just comes out to be a bad guy.
There is a lot of good ecology coming out flOW
about the ecology of disturbance, and most of our
equilibrium is just bounded chaos. I don’t mean that
facetiously, they are bounded oscillations. The
oscillations are important. Disturbance scrambles
gene pools, It keeps age distributions from solidif’in
it does all kinds of neat stuff.
Now, you can have some surrogate management
strategies. pesticides might be one of them. But the
surrogates only handle a suite of the impacts. Fire
will recycle the nutrients, pesticides won’t, but you
could, in some cases will have to manage thmgs by
surrogate disruption. Because you’ve got so much
human development that you can’t burn it the way you
ought to. So you will find compromises that are being
made, and you will intentionally use things that have a
certain amount of risk. Because the ecological
benefits will probably be better. And it could be
chemical disruption. So I wouldn’t take that out of
your repertoire as an option.
0. You would use a pesticide that you know .
A. Certain properties to it, but the point is there are
models now that help you do that assessment, that
management assessment ahead of time, they are
getting better at it. There is a big area of research
flow. At the Oak Ridge federal lab they have a big
landscape ecology program going.
0. The elements of welfare you have developed
beautifully. Historically, ethical concepts have been
developed in the case of deficiency of resources. It
seems to mc that you are preaching to a society that
has an abundant resources. It’s unfortunate that they
have to wait
A. Until they don’t have any!
0. . .do you think there is a hope?
A. Oh, yes, there’s always hope. Lets face it, We
have a society in our country that - I’m one - wants to
be spoiled brats and be absolutely risk-free at the
same time. If you can get away with it, why not.
They aren’t going to give up that unless they know
they have to. So, that’s part of the education process.
The more important question is, what do you do with
China, with 1.3 billion people that are poor? Do you
want them - well, yeah, it’s easy to say, don’t do what
we did, stay poor! That ain’t going to sell, buddy!
You better come up with a few better scenarios than
that, because 80% of the world’s population is poor,
and they know how we live, and they want to catch up.
And their attitude is, we’ll do what you did, and the
hell with the environment, and we’ll pay for it when
we are rich. Or you better get ingenious about how
you get us there - you guys pay for it - that’s what
happened to CFC’s.
They said they would take the substitute as
long as we develop the alternative and gave it to them
patent free. They would use them, but they can’t
afford to do the R & D themselves. You are going to
see a lot more of that, the westernized countries
developing the alternatives, and giving them to these
people, because we are all going to be in bad shape if
they don’t.
If you take these risk curves we have here,
and if I put China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India in
there it blows all these numbers right off the map.
Everything you do is cosmetic, if we put them in the
same equations of production and discharge that we
use, and that is an underlying problem that everyone is
going to have to face.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
51
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
Risk Assessment Workshop
William Cooper, Chair
[ Note: “0.” denotes audience comment; the speaker’s name is given if identified.
“A.” denotes comment from chair. This is a SELECTIVE TRANSCRIPT.
0. What we’ve been talking about is, what is eco-
risk? Not concentrations of pesticides in fish
tissue, but, when people do ecological risk
assessment, what are they trying to accomplish?
What is the goal?
A. I don’t know any pat, bureaucratic answer, but the
answer to the question, what are the significant
ecological risks, is in the eyes of the beholder in
terms of what their concerns are. In terms of
purely ecological impact, Number 1 in ranking of
risk is the loss of a species , because it’s an
irreversible event. In terms of relative ranking,
the loss of biological diversity is the worst possible
event.
0. But if it’s irreversible, then that’s not a
A. No, the risk is an in the middle thing. If you look
at the major reason you lose species, it’s habitat
destruction. Like the systematic draining of
wetlands, it’s an integral, additive thing, and no
one can tell you when the last acre you add is
going to tip the balance and the gene pool is too
small to recover. You have to back off early in
the process of destroying wetlands, and decide
that you don’t want to wait until you get to the
threshold, but regulate while you still have a
buffer. You get down to 20 or 21 whooping
cranes, and you might not get back just on genetic
drift alone. You have to maintain a certain
genetic buffer, an overabundance of habitat, prior
to when you see a catastrophic change in
population survivability.
That’s the worst case scenario. Then you talk, as
we did today, about the degradation of the
resource from the human point of view: can you
eat the fish? This not a purely ecological risk, but
it is ecologically modulated: bioaccumulation,
feeding habits, etc., is ecological, but its impact
might be economic.
The public, however, will tell you what ecological
risk is, and [ abouti it’s human impacts. They
won’t allow you to draw a distinction between that
and purely ecological risk when you write an EIS.
They want to talk about fear, anger and anxieties,
and you Will be dead if you say that’s outside the
boundaries of ecological risk assessment. They’ll
eat you alive!
0. but you can do a risk assessment, and say that
social and economic values are personal values.
‘Li.i tell you what it’s all about. Now y can use
all those things to manage the system.”
A. In ,yQI mind its a risk management problem, to
get you off the hook in analyzing something. In
.th jr mind,there is no distinction between risk
assessment and risk management.
(Exchange: “But, you J !c to separate the two!’]
A. Come on now, I think the idea that scientists do
risk assessment and then hand it over to a bunch
of political scientists to do risk management is
wrong. Al Uhlman’s (Human Health) committee
was the first time the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) ever crossed the line and analyzed
alternatives for risk management. Now, the EPA
didn’t want us to do it. Many on the SAB didn’t
want us to cross that magic line of accountability
where you are encroaching on EPA’s turf. But
we had a letter from Bill Reilly telling us we had
to do it.
0. But it separates the two, you say, I can explain
this, but I can’t explain that. You just said it; you
said it’s a philosophical discussion.
A. That doesn’t mean you can’t explain it. I said, a
lot of the concerns are this NIMBY bit - this
entire society has an absolute fetish on ownership
of private property. If I put a psychiatric prison
there, I would get exactly the same response as if
I had put a land fill there. It has nothing to do
with toxic chemicals.
Q. Then, if all the answers are political-economic
ones, why are you doing the biomonitoring.
A. We were asked to combine the welfare with the
ecological value.
[ More discussion.)
A. EPA is coming out with a report, called the Cost
of Clean: It is an attempt to analyze all the cost
of environmental cleanup. All agencies, private
and public. If you put the DOD and DOE in
there, it comes to 3% of GNP, 400 billion dollars.
There was no attempt to estimate benefits. It’s
all cost. The problem is, when they built the
52
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
William Cooper
into the GNP. In the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, cleaning up
the bomb is going into the GNF. Now what they
ought to do is take the costs that we are incurring
now, and go back and subtract them from GNP in
the same years that the bomb was being built.
That is the appropriate approach to analyzing this
type of economic problem. Industries are now
doing this on a current basis. Asbestos is an
example.
Groundwater is another case. (but how can you
calculate the cost?). Contamination of
groundwater is the biggest thing in Michigan now,
because liability goes with ownership. The banks
in Michigan now are not mortgaging unless you
do an environmental audit, and that includes
groundwater, asbestos, formaldehyde, radon, and
if it’s a federally supported mortgage, you can’t
refinance, and commercial property is in the same
fix. The costs of cleanup are sometimes as high
as value of the property. Banks and insurance
companies are regulating this without government
regulations now. These are examples of how
difficult it is to bound the risk assessment
0. We found in our study that you can involve the
public in the technical aspects of monitoring when
they have a stake in the results. They begin to
understand the process very well, and to tell their
neighbors about what is going on.
A. I will be talking about that on a public television
program tomorrow night, on “Sustainability”. The
question is, “what can the public do”, and you find
that you ç p get people working and doing a lot
of the necessary work.
0. It might be valuable in the EMAP program, to
get support for the money that will be spent on it,
to involve the public in some of the work.
0. I’d like to get focussed on the question before this
conference: we are concerned about risk
assessment concerning pesticides, and how this
risk assessment methodology deals with pesticides
and where they rank among all of the ecological
risks. I’m thinking in terms of sensitivity analysis,
you’ve got these things out here, and if you
removed them from the system, how much would
the world improve?
A. I have a little trouble letting you get away with
focussing just on pesticides. If you take an
animal, or a plant based model, such as one based
on dioxin, using a linear model, i0 5 , we did that
in Michigan. You can go through calculating
risks chemical by chemical, and the problem is,
there is no risk-free system. What you really
want is comparative risk. Instead of using
pesticides, you might let land lie fallow in
alternate years, and not drive it so hard. There
are a lot of alternative practices in agriculture
that you should compare the risk of pesticides
against.
0. In your program [ then] you looked at various
sources and media for environmental destruction
and try to rank them. And air pollution came out
higher in risk than pesticides.
A. Right. Our logic was that time-space
dimensionality is the single most important
criterion.You have things that have very long
half-lives, going into the atmosphere, reactive
chemicals, hydrophobic, coming down in the rain,
get adsorbed into plants or animals. Just those
properties alone told me they are the high-risk
chemicals.
0. Well, the trend in pesticides now is to get away
from things that are long lasting, that volatilize,
should we be spending much time on pesticides,
then?
A. Well, you have engineered a solution, so you
won’t need to spend so much money on your
problem.
Q. But take the sulfano-ureas. They aren’t very
lipophilic, don’t last very long environmentally.
They don’t get into the groundwater, they last in
the soil for a couple of weeks. But, they are put
on in very low concentrations, they are very
susceptible to drift into non-target areas. They
can have short-term acute effects on non-target
plant species right when it is flowering, or at
some other critical period, sure, that plant is
going to come back, a few weeks later it’s going
to look like a healthy plant, but it didn’t
reproduce, or it didn’t put on any growth.
A. Even if you have a benign chemical, you need an
application strategy that matches the growing
cycle. Obviously, if you go and spray it while it’s
flowering.
0. But your risk assessment must address that!
A: But at the level we did it, we met 4 times, we
spend about 15 minutes talking about pesticides.
No question, the strategy is going to have to be
fine tuned. My feeling is, no matter if you fine
tune it, it’s not going to move major categories up
and down those rankings.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED?
53
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
0. Getting back to strategies for risk assessment on
pesticides, there are two tools that we have
available. One is whether or not to allocate more
resources to pesticides versus some other area,
that’s what we need risk assessment for. That’s
what ‘Unfinished Business’ took us back to.
Then beyond that there is the concept of
evaluating the decisions that you make now, on
when to use or not use pesticides, where to use
them, etc., and we do that based on the data that
we have up front. Basically it is a predictive kind
of thing. So, is there a role for risk assessment in
evaluating those decisions? For example, we have
registered the use of disulfoton on this crop and it
has been used for 20 years. Was that a smart
decision?
A. There is no question that you have to make
managerial decisions in EPA, particularly in the
pesticides program. The question, is, what are
you managing for? Are you managing to reduce
risk to human health and ecological risk, or are
you managing to see that people don’t break the
law. Think about that very carefully. I sat in an
Office of Technology Assessment Committee with
Bob Hunt a couple of years ago, when we were
asked how to go about monitoring radio-nuclides,
heavy metals, and organics in the hmnan food
chain. We interviewed all the states; it was right
after PDB in Michigan and kepones in Virginia.
Two of the biggest pollution cases human food
chains, and neither of them were picked up by
either the states or the federal government.
We went to all the state labs, and the chemists
were not monitoring for these. They said, “we
don’t monitor to protect human health. We
monitor to see that the law is enforced!” I’m a
slow learner and I said, “But, they should be one
and the same!”
They are not. They run their gas chromatographs
for the 8 chemicals for which there are reaction
levels. These are the chemicals they are legally
mandated to look for. This takes up all of their
energy and manpower. They have no time to
look for new events and are not required to do
so. So, you are asking, for an assessment to see
whether a level of damage is acceptable. It’s a
very different philosophical framework than
seeing whether an action level has been exceeded
or a label direction has been violated. You don’t
need a risk assessment to do that.
0. And we could spend all of our time doing that,
but as a result of the gross risk assessments that
have been done, people are saying that we should
be putting our resources into the first one.
A. I think you should look at your gross
asssessments: they gross. But, how long are
your action levels. One of them is, by law you
are supposed to re-assess every three years? I
think it’s the action level that goes into the
federal register. You are supposed to go back
every three years , and update and change them,
but almost never is it done. Once you get a
number you are out fighting the next crisis. For
instance, tri-butyl tin was licensed as a pesticide,
back in the ‘60’s. It was a smoking gun, because
they developed it to kill snails in Africa, to
control schistosomiasis, it was toxic as hell, and
that toxicity data never got back to EPA. So one
thing you might do as you have the energy and
money, is to go back and re-evaluate the data
that you
A. That leads to the question that leads up to this
conference. The whole question of ecological
monitoring, which is very expensive. What role
should it play in risk assessment? One of the
things SAB talked about was getting the most
bang for your buck. Is that a wise way to spend
your dollar?
A. Yes, in two ways.How do you know whether your
control systems are working? The whole question
of whether we are over-regulated or under-
regulated. Not just in public health, but are we
protecting the biological resources. There is
absolutely no database that I know of that I can
stand up there and say, yes we are, or no, we are
not. We haven’t the foggiest idea. There is no
trend data, on anything that is interpretable in
terms of endpoints of stress, in the non-human
sector, outside of agriculture, and I’m not even
sure it’s there.
Q. But this will be incredibly expensive to look for
stresses, look for changes in the environment.
When you see changes, then you are going to
have to show that those changes are due to
pesticides, and then you are going to have to
target to individual ones, so that you can change
behavior, which might mean you can change the
way a pesticide is used, or . . . Are there
cheaper, better ways to do it?
A. Yeah, look at human medicine. Say you wake up
in the morning, you feel crappy. You go to the
doctor, he takes your white cell count, looks in
your eye, runs a thermometer from one end to
the other, probably does your heart rate. He
makes an assessment, doesn’t he. Low cost,
standard parameters, fairly generic. He thinks he
has enough correlates for each measurement that
it will correlate with a whole
54
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
suite of things. If everything is fine he says
“you’ve got a hangover - go home.” If one of those
is way off the scale you go to the next tier and
bring in the chemist, do the CAT scan, or
whatever, it costs you a lot more money, but you
already have some idea of which sub-set to look
at. It’s kind of a [ logical] tree of decision making.
They operate on the basis of, simple data is
cheap. They focus a little bit more at each step,
fmally they open you up. Why can’t you take a
hierarchical approach like that to environmental
issues?
A. Maybe you can. One of the things I’d like to see
is a national program monitoring for ecological
incidence. What I’ve heard about EMAP is that
the idea is to go back to the same small area
every four or five years that
0. Well, EMAP is not exactly what we’re getting at.
0. Well, I’m not saying whether they are the same,
or whether one is a subset of the other.
0. Well, back to monitoring - you ask why it should
be so expensive. One reason is that there is so
much natural variability, that in order to get
decent data you will have to invest money over
time to get a baseline from which you can
deviants. And because of that variability you can’t
just go and stick a jar in one time and pull a
sample out.
A. Well sure, but the National Institutes of Health
does that. They have a health reporting statistics
set-up in this country for all kinds of stuff.
They’ve been doing this for long enough now that
they’ve got time trends. They do it world-wide.
They put a lot of money into it.
0. And it represents measurements worth trillions of
dollars!
Q. That’s what I mean, it’s expensive.
A. But that depends on the scale of it. You may not
have to track every disease 111cc you do with
human health.
0. But how much will we spend over the entire
United States in order to prove that there’s a
problem, and will you then be too late?
A. There’s qo way you can answer that question until
you know what level of certainly you have to
deliver. You have to decide how narrow the
holes in your net will be
0. But this is one of the things we wanted to discuss,
that is, can this be done, is it too expensive, are
there tools? So we shouldn’t just shout down
those questions.
A. Are there alternative tools; is there a better way
to spend your money?
0. And they are already spending, up to $50 million
per chemical to register them, that’s at the front
end. Is that the best way to spend the money? I
know it comes from the registrant, but it’s a
societal cost.
A. Yeah, you are putting an awful lot of money up
front. It figures that there are really only about 5
crops that are big enough that it is economically
justified to build a new insecticide for.
0. If we put $50 million per chemical at the other
end, that would be an awful lot of information!
A. But the problem is that you cannot justify asking
a registrant to do a lot of monitoring unless it’s
his chemical alone, not generic.
0. But lets keep in mind, you talk about high cost -
we are spending a lot of money already, so lets
keep in mind that we are spending a lot of money
already, and are we spending it for the right
thing. Maybe we need to put efforts into exactly
that change.
0. There are discussions of that kind, and this is
somewhat the basis for the idea of registering
pesticides conditionally upon monitoring in the
future, that the registrant may have to prove that
his pesticide is not [ ? ? ?J
A. Sure - with air emissions from incinerators.
There is no way you can predict ahead of time
what the emissions will be, because it depends on
what you put into them and on the manager. So
we put them, in, we monitor the hell out of them
for the next 6 month, and them we set the
standards depending on performance.
0. The NPDES permits do a lot of that
A. Yeah.
0. But there is some tradition established. If you
tried to change the way pesticides are registered,
there would be so much screaming. That would
be a hard thing to sell.
I-lOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
55
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
0. We almost don’t have enough data to register
pesticides now, with how much people want to
know ahead of time. (discussion)
A. Getting back to your risk assessment, I think that
you need to get out of the bind of just doing
chemical comparisons. If you stay in that bind
you never will fmd a solution. the risk, for
instance, to public health I’ve seen figures, and
this is assuming that 80% of the pesticides applied
isn’t to grow crops, it is cosmetic, it’s so food
looks nice, it has nothing to do with risk to public
health.
0. You mean, try to get people to buy blemished
apples?
A. They do, all over the world except here they do!
A. it is disease free, and you can cut those spots out,
there is no disease whatever in an apple worm.
0. Apples are one thing, but the brown spots on a
banana! (laughter)
A. There are other control systems, You don’t need
to get locked in to the idea that people have the
right to have what they want.
0. This morning you made some comment about the
exposure of polluted air(?) versus ground water.
I’d like to understand better your point of view on
that. I understand the notion of (?). Considering
the widespread distribution of ground pollution,
and considering that we already have several
decades of better understanding of air pollution,
but we are just beginning to understand.
A. I think the atmospheric guys would argue with
that,
Q. you also mentioned this morning about the time
lag: If you look at the concentration levels in
these widespread distributions of wastes, they are
four or five magnitudes higher than in the air, and
if you look at time lag, they are also four or five
magnitudes slower in spread or degradation. We
are looking at (potential) disaster.
A. But that’s the point I tried to make. It’s a Catch-
22. The assessments now in terms of risk are real
now in terms of global distributions of certain
kinds of things, and populations exposed. The
groundwater is an example of your terrestrial
component. It’s a major issue waiting to happen.
In terms of transport and fate, and since we have
substitutes right now in this country. At best that
disaster won’t show up for 20 to 30 years. The
real cost of ignoring ground water won’t show up
for a couple of decades. And the landfills, every
one of them is licenced by state government.
That was the way we did business in the ‘50’s
and ‘60’s.
When you use the kind of economic analysis
where you use discount theory, you price
something out. It’s not real, you don’t need to
worry about it now, you can let your kid worry
about it.
0. Isn’t that the same issue, about factoring those
future costs in today?
A. Yes, it’s whether you ignore it and let your kid
pay for it, or take care of it now, as the cost of
the cost of doing business. My attitude is, you
pay for it now. But if you go through the
numbers generation (discount theory), the
numbers do not come out that way. Our policy
says it is the number one priority, but the
numbers say it isn’t, it’s way behind air pollution
and so forth.
0. You are saying EPA isn’t doing this correctly?
A. No I’m saying from my point of view, I can’t walk
away from groundwater. I have a certain
commitment to your grandkids. But you still
have to face up to certain things today, and the
atmospherics, indoor air, are way out in front.
Global chemistry - for the first time in history we
have enough industry to affect global chemistry.
Unless you look at Poland - if you use Poland as
your baseline, EPA has been 100% successful.
But we were given the task of not to say whether
what you do is good or bad, but, given the
problems you have solved, what are the risks that
are left. That assumes that the problems that you
solved will stay solved.
End of TAPE
0. I still don’t see why you still have to spend money
on air, when you admit that the ground problem
is a problem. (question simplified)
A. But we haven’t even started to spend money on
air like we have on the surface water and ground
water. . . It’s because we are seeing global
atmospheric chemistry change! That’s an
awesome observation.
Q. What do you use to support that observation
A. CQ There’s no debating CO 2 ‘s gone up about
30% in 80 years. Nobody argues about that, You
56
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
can argue what it means, but you’ve got good
hard data that we are affecting global chemistry,
We are not doing that in terms of surface water.
You can’t show that even in the ocean. You can
show it in terms of CFCs and chloride compounds
and ozone. This is the first time any human
population has been able to show global
atmospheric change. And you combine it with,
what’s the name of that report you just released,
on mass loading that came out about 4 months
ago? That report on chemicals industry by
industry?
0. The TRI’s
A. did you look at that data? A lot of surprises. In
My state, Kellogg’s and Upjohn - boy, did they
start scrambling;. They were the two biggest
point sources, and nobody knew it, and it had a
hell of an impact on them.
0. Well, that indicates there is a problem,
monitoring the atmosphere indicated there is a
problem, and the big question is, now that we
know that there is a problem, what do we do
about it, how do we change it?
A. Well in that case, public knowledge alone did it.
0. But in that case it was point sources, but when
you look at all the other sources, do those even
begin to compare to automobiles. If you want to
save the earth, where is the source of that C0 2 ?
A. It’s degradation
Q. it’s in power generation and transportation.
A. Let me tell you about what you get into with
global warming. I want to a briefing for Senator
Bradley, explained global warming from an
ecologist’s point of view. Then an economist
came in. He said, Global warming is no problem
at all. The only sector of the economy affected by
global warming is agriculture. Agriculture is only
3% of the GNP, so it’s trivial!
And there’s a whole sector out there that don’t
believe either global warming or groundwater is a
problem. They can’t visualize the impact that
growing CO 2 levels will have, which will be total
destabilization of the economy.
Q. But you still have to put the emissions of one
plant, a point source, into perspective.
A. Well, we did, Air and Toxics is right up there
next to global warming in our priorities. But we
don’t look at whether it is point or non-point -
that’s your bureaucratic approach. We look at
atmoshpere vs. surface water vs. ground water.
0. This is very interesting but in the few minutes we
have left, could we get some sense of this group,
is there any need to put any resources, any
people, into trying to assess the effects of
pesticides. Into trying to get data after the
decisions are made.
0. I think it’s a question of a system of tiers of
monitoring studies. You can start off with what
EPA does today. They require some acute
studies, and when required, some chronic studies.
What can you do beyond that? You can go for
some poisoning studies, some bird kills or thing,
like that. You can go much more expensive. For
example, you can try to catalog ecological
systems, to look for a baseline to try to attribute
changes to pesticides or other things . You could
try a pilot program in a small area before doing
something on a national basis which would be
incredibly expensive.
There’s a process that you have to think about.
In an ideal world where you have lots of money
you want to go for broke and try to do everything
you can to look for ecological changes.
A. Well, why can’t you use existing data bases like
HEALTHNET? Food testing agencies like FDA
do a lot of monitoring for pesticide products in
food products.
0. That’s what I’m saying. before we go out and get
more numbers, lets look at what we’ve got now.
0. We are actually doing that in the Northwest. We
are trying to get a handle on all that is going on
right now, and we have a contract out, the
contractor is trying to assemble all that
information and make it available to everyone.
A. National marine fisheries has a bunch of stuff on
seafoods - done with standard analytical
procedures which have been going on for 10 or
15 years. There is a bunch of stuff out there.
Doesn’t it seem as if we are being pushed into
this pesticide bit? If Region 10 wants to go out
there and start monitoring, then I think that is a
worthwhile thing to do. But to start out and say
it only for pesticides, puts us into this little
pesticides box. When you do find a problem,
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
57
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
then it is going to he difficult to sort out and see
whether it’s due to pesticides or something else,
I can really see a monitoring thing to look for
changes, to find things that we really haven’t
identified yet, like the dioxin problem. You say
that the spending is something like $50 million to
get a pesticide rcgistered.That ought to give us at
least some assurance, - it doesn’t say that the
pesticide is not a problem, but it ought to give us
as least Some assurance that it is not going to be
major.
Maybe we’re focussed on pesticides just because
that’s where EPA puts it’s money - pesticide
dollars, water dollars, non-point source dollars.
0. Maybe to illustrate the problem: EPA did a study
of acid rain, where they artificially lowered the
pH of a lake to 4, and there were very few
changes from when the lake was pH 6.8 or
whatever.
A. Well that was John - -
0. The conclusion was, well you don’t have to worry
about a low pH., but then they saw lakes where
the pH was lowered, hut nowhere near 4, and it
basically wiped out the biota. Well, it turned out
that it wasn’t the lake at all, it was the aluminum,
which was in the watershed, and when the p14 got
below 5, it mobilized the aluminum, and that was
what poisoned the organisms. The point is, you
can do some really intelligent experiments up
front, and but they may not take account of all of
the variable, so don’t we have the responsibility as
decision-makers as the people allowing the
release, to follow that up with some sort of post-
decision monitoring to
0. I guess that I would argue that you have to be a
little bit broader, look at a whole variety of stuff.
0. That’s more expensive
0. Does it make sense to get concerned when a
pesticide has 100 ppb bcnzene in it, as an inert,
when we’ve got 2% to 6% benzene in gasoline?
A. On the other hand, the drinking water standard
for benzene in Michigan is 0.6 ppb. It’s a very
bad actor.
0. It’s a bad actor, but where should you go after
beazene. it’s going into the air from the gasoline.
(exchange about where to spend dollars most
effectively)
Q. We’re not suggesting turning a blind eye (to it’s
presence in pesticides), I’m not familiar with the
Clean Air Act, but many of the other programs
do the kind of monitoring that we are talking
about right now. They make a regulatory
decision that will result in the release of a
substance into the environment, and they
require,some monitoring to see that decision is
right.
0. That’s called product stewardship.
0. It seems to me that we should go toward a tiered
information system, and it seems to me we ignore
a very successful one, maybe just because I know
bees better than anything else. I’ve learned that
bee-keepers can tell you where not to keep bees,
because they have recurrent problems, generally
there’s a problem there. Those keepers that
have several hundred hives can tell you where the
problem areas are. They may not know what the
problem is.
Now in the tiered analogy, we know that there is
a problem there as a result of the first step, then
we may have to do some dIgging to find out what
it is,
Two things come out of that - one is, that in the
short term the bee keeper sees the problem. The
other is that, we have found out that the more
important effects are the low-level long-term,
cumulative sapping of the productivity of the
hives. It’s different than that nailing everybody
and the whole hive dropping dead. Occasionally
you will see stresses building up and doing that,
and this makes us different than the traditional
pesticide toxicologist, who says that if it doesn’t
push them all over the edge, it’s not important.
Ecologically it’s much more important, the long,
slow debilitating effect. But I think we have
information sources available to us, not just the
acute studies, but (?) (ask other listeners)
0. This gets back to some of those cost things -
there may be enough going on already by
different groups, that never talk to each other
that it.
A. Maybe we are looking at the wrong things. WE
know that if we go out in the Great Lakes and
get a fish that you are going to get
organochlorines, and so what, those levels are
declining - We need to look for the newer
pesticides that are being used now.
0. Well, we are talking about more than looking for
pesticides. You take sulfano-ureas. You can go
58
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
William Cooper
out and look for them, but you aren’t going to
find them, because you can’t measure than low,
but they have an effect. I mean, we think they
have an effect, because.
A. There’s whole classes of things like the organo-
metailics - it happened with tributyl-tin, there’s
arsenic, cadmium, zinc, organic complexes, a lot
of it’s used in agriculture, the organic chemistry
is not there. when the boat paint came out, we
couldn’t see it down there, they had to develop
new techniques. There are pyrethroids, a whole
bunch of things that analytical chemist can say,
look out for this one.
Q. Now there’s also the matter of, who’s goals are
you looking at it from. There was a meeting
down at Reno a questionnaire came out,
generated by the bee-keeping industry that was
getting (beep) off about losing bees, asking “how
do you define bloom’, and does a week in bloom
constitute a violation of the label registration.
and the feeling among the state enforcement
people was, for god’s sake, don’t classify weeds as
blooms, because it will give us an impossible
enforcement situation. From an ecological
perspective, bees don’t know that blooming weeds
aren’t blooms!
Q. Rick, as a manager, if someone does an
assessment, what are you going to do with it.
We’re in a local region. We have incidence of
disease, either of people or of organisms. Do you
want us to assess that, help you manage the
application or use, or do you want to shut down
the carbofuran industry nationwide?, which is
what EPA does in the $50 million dollar type
thing. They are making a universal decision. I
think if you do an assessment for a manager you
have to decide what you are going to do.
A. (Rick) As I understand the question, what it
boils down to is, if we would get information on
effects of a pesticide that were not anticipated at
the time of registration of the chemical, we would
like to give that information back to the
Registration Division, have them re-look at the
registration. They may not have to ban it, they
may put some label restrictions on it. They may
have to change the rate at which it is applied, they
may have to change the time of year, there a lot
of things they could do, or, they might have to
ban it.
Q. So what you are doing is validating the model
which allowed them to register the pesticide in
the first place.
0. 1 think one of the best monitors of ecological
problems is, and I think that’s what I am hearing,
“how do you know where they are?”, is people
who Live on the land are the best indicators of
where they are, not the transients who’ve moved
into a townhouse last year and they are going to
move out in one more year, but the people who
have been there for a long period of time, who
have a reasonable baseline for what’s going on,
for instance “We don’t have birches growing here
any more”. Now, why is that?
These people know that there is a problem. They
don’t know what is the reason for that, it’s going
to take someone to come in and take a closer
look at that ecosystem and understand that area,
but if you are going to try to monitor the
ecosystems of the whole United States, people
who are already on the land there have the
baseline information that you need. That’s the
way it used to work when we were doing farming
with lots of sensitivity and with eyeballs and ears
and noses. Most times not we have a
mechanized farming with a couple of guys on
tractors who are farming thousands of acres,and
they haven’t got time to look at anything. That’s
a problem when about 2% of the population is
farming and there aren’t enough eyeballs and
noses.
0. It’s not just farmers, it’s hikers and Audubon
Society.
A. I’m talking more about the agricultural setting
where we use most of the pesticides.
Q. And when we talk about sustainable agriculture,
we have to get away from one person farming
40,000 acres.
A. There’s a lot of technology, I had a grad student
15 years ago, Steve Welch, at Michigan State -
he’s gone to Kansas now, Developed a model on
a PC, on Cherry orchards. You get the cherry
blight in your orchard, and there’s a window of
temperature and moisture, and you’ve got 48 his
to spray before the fungus takes off. They have
weather stations over the county reporting back
to a computer in the experiment station’s office in
the county, and he can put out an alert to
farmers. Same thing with apples now.
Q, Insects in Florida come north through Georgia.
The farmers in Georgia now know they don’t
have to spray every three days because the bugs
haven’t gotten there yet. They don’t have to
spend $2,000 to spray your field, because the
southern army worm isn’t there yet.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
59
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
[ discussion of whether it’s risk assessment when a
farmer makes an informed judgement, whether or not
to spray.]
A. In the spirit of delegated authority, one of you is
gong to stand up and summarize the discussion of
this group. Do I have a volunteer? . . . You
are the only one with a tie on, I don’t know your
name,
0. Michael (Firestone).
A. Michael, you just volunteered to stand up and
summarize this discussion.
A. Now, what are the end points of this meeting that
you want him to pass out? I here some of you
saying, we need risk assessment for accountability,
to see whether our programs are working. Do
you agree to that? To see whether you are under-
regulating, over-regulating, or what
0. You have to consider both the cost of that
pesticide right now, and it’s future cost to society
A. Sure, I didn’t limit your time frame. One thing
about risk assessment and or monitoring is to see
that your controls work. What else did you agree
to?
0. There should be better utilization of the other
databases out there.
A. That’s correct. No sense in re-inventing the
square wheel. I’ll tell you, databases will eat you
alive. NASA is an example of that. It gets to be
the tail wagging the dog.
0. There’s an issue that we started out with, and it
wasn’t resolved. There’s a point of view that, as a
scientist you do your research, and you throw out
your numbers, and you say, that’s all I owe. The
other part of it, and I agree with you, is that point
of view is almost immoral. As a scientist, an
ecologist, you come up with a function or a
system or a number, you are best to know how
that is to be used. And it’s almost your duty,
maybe that’s too strong, to apply that, and get it
out to the public. I’ve heard it said before that
every scientist should spend 10% of his time
putting this out to the public; we never resolved
this.
A. Basically you are saying that risk assessment
should involve risk communication.
0. But it involves all the things you talked about. It
involves the fears and anxieties of the people that
are impacted, it involves the bees, - my father is a
beekeeper, and he’s not worried about pesticides,
he’s worried about the introduction of the African
bee, whether that fear is real or not. (comment -
‘media hype”)
0. I think we should be careful when we talk about
risk assessment. When we start doing that, we
think we know what we are talking about. The
world is changing day by day. We learn more
about analytical chemistry, we learn more about
cause and effect, we learn more about transport,
there new theories about (?) which means, we’ve
got to go back and re-evaluate, am I monitoring
properly? You have to be smart, think how often
you have to go back and re-look.
A. And along that line, we look about relative risk
reduction. Relative means there are no
absolutes. Everything is risky, there is no zero
risk. Strictly comparative risk assessments, and
it’s residual, because you are looking for what
problems haven’t you solved, with your new
programs. And it’s risk reduction , because you
are not only defining a risk, but defining it in an
operational mode you can do something about.
There might be some risks that are lower, but
you put a priority on them because you can solve
them rapidly. Radon in the basement - with a
$2000 gimmick you can solve that problem. Even
though it’s a smaller risk than global warming,
you solve it first. Those kinds of analyses are
something you should be sensitive to.
0. In another analogy to medicine, it seems to me
that there are some biomomtoring measures that
we can take, that are like pulse rate and so forth,
not necessarily that we have to find another
measure, or find the perfect measure, but find
something we understand, that we can interpret,
that will raise red flags.
A. If you ask an ecologist what is comparable to
body temperature, that will integrate all sorts of
problems or ills in the ecosystem, the only thing
that is common is energy flux like Tom Odum’s
kind of stuff
0. But the big thing, why we get big horror stories
like the Lake Victoria Nile Perch, is because we
don’t really understand how system respond to
perturbation. We don’t have enough information
Risk assessment depends on us understanding
how a system is going to respond. We tend to go
out biomonitoring, and look at our organisms,
clams or fish or invertebrates, maybe we need to
spend more time looking at the underlying
processes that support those systems, to see
60
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
William Cooper
whether pesticides or introduction of exotic
species influence those underlying processes,
rather than just looking at the biota. I don’t
know how to go about that.
A. Well there are a lot of ways. As an example, the
Yellowstone fires left a great experimental lab
right now. Mt. St. Helens is another example,
They are doing a lot of forest dynamics and patch
succession studies.
0. Clear cutting is another example.
A. Sure, as part of your monitoring you could look at
(f?) dynamics, get a better feeling about response
curves. These are all terms we use. I can use
them as an academic, and don’t have to worry
about quantifying them. In a risk assessment, you
have to put numbers on them.
0. Should we, instead of putting our pesticide money
into a new pesticide monitoring project, go out
and fmd the on-going ecological studies and give
each of them a little money and ask them to add
pesticides to their monitoring.
A. That’s an interesting question, because last year
Bill Reilly gave all the Regions the internal
flexibility to reprogram up to 20% o their budget
(to confront those problems with the greatest
perceived risk.)In the 10 regions, the maximum
that was actually reprogrammed was 7%.
(general hoo-hah) - but it’s not re-allocating your
money, because you are supposed to use this to
monitor for pesticides, and in this case you are
supposed to be monitoring for pesticides, but
instead you spend the money outside of your
agency, giving it to another group that is good at
monitoring. This has to be less expensive and
more effective. You are doing two things, you are
monitoring for pesticides, and you are continuing
a research project that is fmding other things in
the environment besides pesticides.
A. Sure, it’s transfer of funds. DOE does that all the
time.
0. Pesticides rarely does that.
0. If we did do that we’d enhance our financial
synergism.
0. I know of one instance when OPP did that, David
Baker in Ohio. He has a surface water program
that’s gone on for years.
0. They did that in Puget Sound before Washington
state got it together and started monitoring, there
were a lot of agencies that got together and
agreed on how to monitor and when to do it.
A. Chesapeake Bay did some of that.
0. To do that you need to go personal relationships
between scientists. There is a program between
the Las Vegas Lab, California Dept. Food and
Agriculture and the Pesticide Program to develop
monitoring methods and to analyze
environmental samples. People got to know each
other and found common problems, they shared
expertise and lab facilities.
Let me ask you something. When you read the
Human Health Report, Art Uhiman’s report,
they say that they can find no evidence of human
health risks from secondary impact, that is, from
pesticide residuals in food, from any of the
epidemiological databases. Thee is no risk from
food or drinking water. It’s all media hype. The
only risk was from direct exposure, to the
applicators and workers in the fields. Do you
agree with that?
0. It’s not that black and white, but we know that an
occupational exposure to pesticides is 3 to 4
orders of magnitude higher. On the other hand,
it’s a smaller population, so the actual number of
cancer cases due to diet is probably higher.
0. Lets take this and study it. You know, for human
health, the mode of exposure. You know that
ecologically, the mode of exposure is
predominantly through aquatic and terrestrial
food chains. Would you be willing to recommend
that all of your monitoring be focussed on those
two exposure routes, and ignore trace chemistry
and food products, even though that is what the
public wants you to do? And ground water,
because you know that your action levels are so
low that you are not close to human health. Will
you study only two pathways, terrestrial and
aquatic food chains, mostly aquatic, because we
know it’s much higher than terrestrial?
0. But Congress won’t let you.
A. But that’s when you stand up for your Science,
and say that’s what your science says,
0. I think there is some value in monitoring foods as
a preventative and regulatory thing.
A. Then let the FDA do that!
0. But the weight of the public is against you.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
61
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
A. Then stand up for your science. Bill Reilly has
done that, elevating ecological concerns to the
same level as human health. Don’t you think it
takes guts to stand up and say that to a bunch of
people.? “What do you mean, dickeybirds have
the same value as my kids do?” You don’t know
you won’t win if you don’t try it.
[ Discussion of the relative risks of confronting the
public with scientific information, e. g. But I won’t
step into the ring with Mike Tyson!’]
0. We should look at what replacements, or
alternatives are available. Doing risk assessment
on a lot of chemicals without looking for another
chemical that will do the same thing and is a
zillion times less toxic. The public wants those
kinds of things in the assessment.
A. To a great degree we’ve done that, we’re very
rapidly running out of technological substitutions.
Every problem we’ve encountered to date we’ve
solved without a major change in life style, we’ve
found a technological fix. We are now getting
into a class of problems where that is not true -
A. You are going to have to look at source
reductions
A. That’s right, and when we get involved with
solutions to problems that change human
behavior, you are going to have a social battle.
0. For example, people want food that is free of
pesticides,
A. and they also want it cheap.
0. We need to do better in public education about
relative risk. When the Alar scare was on, there
was a cartoon of a mother, driving to an Alar
protest meeting, cigarette in her mouth, speeding,
toddler standing on the seat beside her not
strapped in.
A. With all due respect, EPA passed the buck, They
should have stood up and blasted the hell out of
them. If you go through life using risk aversion,
you can’t have it both ways. If you are
conservative, no one will listen to you.
0. There should be more emphasis on risk
communication. Scientists don’t want to do it, but
it should be done. (Examples of scientists who
preach successfully to the public - Sagan,
Cousteau (his science stinks).)
0. I think there is being better communication of
science in the mass media. The ground is being
prepared (for risk communication).
A. If people care, and scientists do a good job. You
say everybody agrees that CO 2 is a problem. We
now have a watered down clean air act. Why?
A. da da not compared to the old one. It’s watered
down because the political system in our country
is compromised.
Q. There are some very conservative things in that
950 page document, things like keeping risk to
the most exposed human being to 10. , totally
outrageous conservative things that probably
ought to have been withdrawn, and it’s watered
down in some areas.
A. Now, it doesn’t address C0 2 , because nobody
knows how to do that today without economic
chaos, but in the aggregate it’s a much tougher
bill than we had before.
A. But the question is, what do you want to say in
terms of risk assessment. I guess what I was
trying to force you to do is, if you agree that
there are only two major exposure routes, do you
want to limit your risk assessment to those two
routes.?
0. Well, I’ll take a stand if you’ll agree that there is
another exposure route. In terms of ecological
effects, direct application is also an important
exposure route.
A. You mean in terms of loss of species, biological
diversity, there’s no question, we’ll put that one in
there.
0. Will you restate the stand then?
A. Well,there are two exposure routes to humans,
direct exposure and aquatic food chains, and the
third one is loss of biological diversity.
Q. Why is it taking threats of court cases to get
standards for re-entries for farm workers? I think
there is more to it than identifying risks.
[ tape ends while they are still talking]
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Cooper
Summary of Risk Assessment Workshop
Michael Firestone
The first thing we talked about was the dollars we
spend to regulate. The group felt strongly that we
ought to go beyond considering just what the current
risks are, to what the long-term risks might also be.
We need to better utilize the current data bases
before we go out and spend a lot more money trying
to assess ecological health, ecological risk. Apparently
there are a lot of programs, and we need get a much
better system for reporting “incidents”. We need to
integrate the ongoing studies, to try to target where
we might want to spend money in the future.
Then we talked a little about something that’s
making the rounds at headquarters now called product
stewardship, and that means, in the case of pesticides,
not just spending all this money to get your product
registered today and then don’t worry about it, but
after you’ve got your pesticide registered and it is out
there, working with grower groups to make sure it is
properly utilized, that they don’t cause either human
heatlh problems or ecological risk problems. It means
following up on the use of pesticides in the long run,
being sure that they are going to be used safely and
taking action if they are not. I think one of the things
that is kind of difficult in this area of ecological monit-
oring is associating an effect with an agent. Is it due
to the pesticides that are being used, is it due to diox-
in releases that are occurring from paper mills, or
whatever? And there was a lot of talk about total
ecological health, making sure our viewpoint goes
beyond just pesticides per se and looks at the total
picture. Pesticides is obviously an integral part, there
is widespread use of pesticides, of a release of someth-
ing we know can be very, very toxic to the environ-
ment, but it’s only part of the picture.
We talked about relative risk and the ability to
effect risk reduction. In other words, if something was
higher risk but we didn’t think we could control it very
easily, but there was something that was a little less
risky, but that it was a solvable problem, and it wasn’t
going to be that expensive, then perhaps that was
where we ought to be targetting our dollars.
It is important to use a tiered approach to gener-
ating data. Certain pesticides present a much greater
potential for causing ecological risk, and if we are
going to be looking for pesticides and their effects we
ought to be targeting which ones. It’s interesting was
that there is so much monitoring of organochiorine
residues in the environment. One of the reasons that
OC’s are no longer used is their incredible persistence
in the environment. We had better go on beyond
organochiorines to some of the newer pesticides, and
make sure that they aren’t causing the same kinds of
problems.
We need to know much more about the biota
and the interactions of the different organisms before
we can totally evaluate some of the effects, Thats
obviously going to be a fairly expensive and long range
project, considering the differences across the country.
We need to use studies currently under way to
look at pesticides. There are currently a large number
of ongoing studies, and it may make more sense to put
a few extra dollars into some of these ongoing studies
and ask them to look specifically for pesticides effects
rather than starting brand new studies. Cooperative
efforts among scientists are important. Something
that we can start to build today is interaction, getting
to know who is doing what out there so that we can
get some help and insight when we start new studies,
or when we try to evaluate the data coming out of
these studies.
OK, now we are getting to where Bill is trying to
take us, which is, where are we spending our money,
where are the risks: where are the real risks. Are we
willing to stand up as scientists and take a stand and
say, we are spending all this money in .tj j s area, but in
reality, jj 1 j is where we think the real risks are. We
talked about retargeting money from dietary exposure,
from superfund type projects, to areas where direct
exposure could lead to the highest risk. I think the
SAB talked a little bit about that for occupational
exposure to pesticides. We talked a little bit about
aquatic exposure food chain, and I think maybe that is
where we ought to be spending our dollars. I think
that is what we all have to ask ourselves, how much
can we affect what happens with the money that is
spent on risk assessment, and where to we want to
target those dollars in the future.
A problem that came up is what if the solutions
to the risk problems that come up require a change in
human behavior. We won’t really change as a society.
Seems like we always look at various problems and
say, well, maybe there is a way we can throw some
dollars at it and take care of the problem. What if we
have to fundamentally change our behavior in this
country, are we willing to do that? It’s an interesting
question.
We talked about the role of risk communication.
ALAR is a good example of [ bad science education
through the news media.1
The last thing that we talked about was dollars
for pollution prevention, the cheapest way to affect or
to reduce risk is to not have it out there.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
63
-------
Monitoring Pesticide Exposure and Impact
in Wildlife Inhabiting Agroecosystems
Michael J. Hooper
Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology
Clemson University, Clemson, SC
ABSTRACT
Organophosphates and carbamates are anti-cholinesterase pesticides used in lwge quantities on and around
agricultural areas in the No, hwest as well as much of Noith America. Their high acute toxicity has led to much
concern about potential wildlife impacts following their application. Determination of exposure and impacts of
these pesticides is necessaiy in pre-approva4 re-evaluation and post-approval monitoring projects. Pre-approval
and re-evaluation studies generally address isolated application sites, minimizing inputs from adjacent fields and
yielding hazard approximations specific to the compound of interest. Post-approval, regional evaluations represent
a greater challenge. Agroecosystems are frequently laige contiguous areas of monocultured crops or can be a
parchwork of many diverse crops. Potential pesticide exposure scenarios are often quite different in these
assessments, resulting in impacts which may differ from those found in controlled isolated sudies. Studies will be
presented which focus on both types of monitoring encompassing corn and orchard ecosystems.
Questions for Mike Hooper may pick up individuals whether the sensitivity is
biochemical or behavioral.
0. In brain choilnesterase, there are reports that not
only are there seasonal and genetic differences, 0. But you have a (?J, you take either very exposed
but also there is a sampling time lag response or very weak animals to begin with.
with death to the organism for example, that the
sample through time lag recovers activity. Do you A. Right, but we get past the weakest individuals as
fmd a problem like that with birds? the number of individuals gets down below that
threshold.
A. Yes, that’s why you have to census your area
quickly, particularly during the time when you
anticipate mortality. That becomes an extreme
problem with carbamates,s where reactivation
occurs either within the animal or right post-
mortem .y y quickly. Right now we are trying to
fmd methods where we can work comfortably with
carbamates, and I hope to do a field study with
that this season.
Q. I think it is reasonable to find a threshold where
you fmd tools, standard deviation - standard error
of the mean, aren’t you focussing on the most
successful members of the community - what
about the outliers? (difficulty in understanding
question)
A. You pick up the outliers as that 2.5% that you
expect to sit below those 2 standard deviations in
your control. However, you pick up either those
that are most sensitive or those that are most
exposed. sensitivity may not be sensitivity to the
compound, it may be a behavioral sensitivity in
that the way it acts results in a larger exposure.
We think that the blue jays are smart. They are
the only bird that will each a whole corn kernel.
They go out in the field as soon as the corn is
planted, stick their beaks in the ground, and pull
up a corn kernel taking the granules with it. So it
64 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
A Model for Describing Community Change’
Geoffrey Matthews
Computer Science Department
Robin Matthews
Hwdey College of Environmental Studies
Western Washington University
ABSTRACT
Biological monitoring and multispecies toxicity tests generate comple multivariate data sets. The
primaiy tools found useful in studies of multivariate data have been ordination and classification techniques
based on a view of the data matrix as a collection of points in a highly-dimensioned feature space. This view
usually requires making unsupported assumptions about the data (Gaussian distributions, equal variances,
etc.) Where these assumptions are not met, it is often necessaiy to transform the raw data by taking
logarithms, normalizing the variances, or eliminating outliers. We have developed a technique (Clustering and
Association Analysis) that measures the strength of associations between clusters and treatment TOU S (Or
samples grouped by location, date, etc.). In our technique the data are first clustered independently of their
treatment group. We advocate the use of nonmetric clustering for this step because it is insensitive to changes
in scale and can filter out many effects due to outliers and differences in variance between parameters. After
the dusters are generated, the degree of match between the clusters and the treatment is calculated. If the
data are strongly influenced by the treatment, the clusters in the data will have a strong association with the
treatment. On the other hand, if the treatment or location has no effect, the clusters will be random with
respect to treatment. The strength of this association can be used to determine a significance level for the
effect. We present the results of this technique on data from a standardized aquatic microcosm (SAM) test.
INTRODUCTION
Biological monitoring and
multispecies toxicity tests
(microcosm and mesocosm)
Continue to grow in importance.
They address the problems of
community change, and the
analytical tools used to study them
must be constructed in this light.
Measurements on dozens to
hundreds of species and abiotic
parameters result in complex,
multivariate data sets. The
peculiarities of environmental
monitoring result in problems for
the analysis of this data, as well.
Many species are absent, resulting
in many zeroes in the data matrix.
Rare species and common species
may each indicate effects, although
their variances are quite different.
Counts may be in individuals,
clusters, or colonies. Observations
are quite often simply missing” or
incomplete, due to hazards of field
work.
In this paper we advocate a
methodology for analyzing such
data sets with the express goal of
simplifying the data. We want to
reduce the data to its important
aspects. We do this in two ways.
First, the samples, which usually
run into the hundreds, are reduced
into a few fundamental clusters.
Second, the measured parameters,
both biotic and abiotic, will be
reduced to a few important ones.
The important ones are simply
those which have the strongest
association with the sample
clusters. We present the essentials
of our technique in the context of
discussing the analysis of data
from a standardized aquatic
microcosm experiment.
A Standardized Aquatic
Microcosm Study
The standardized aquatic
microcosm test we use here for
illustration involved the testing of
a toxin, and also the possible
mitigating effects of a bacterium
which degraded the toxin. The
toxin was CR, a riot control
chemical, and the bacterium is
known as CR-i. Questions about
the SAM test itself should be
directed to Wayne Landis, Institute
for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Western Washington
University.
wish to thank Wayne Landis, Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Huxley College,
Western Washington University. for his contributions to our project and for providing the SAM study data.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
65
-------
A MODEL FOR DESCRIBING COMMUNITY CHANGE
The experiment was set up
with four treatment groups, and
two flasks in each group. Flasks 1
and 2 were the control group,
flasks 3 and 4 had the toxin added,
flasks 5 and 6 had the bacterium,
but not the toxin, added, and flasks
7 and 8 had the toxin and the
bacterium. Typical biotic
responses to the test are shown in
Figure 1, and abiotic parameters in
Figure 2. As can be seen by
looking at the response of Daphizia
in Figure 1, the degradation
products of this toxin were also
toxic. In flasks 3, 4, 7 and 8, the
Daphiila die out after
administration of the toxin, while
they show very healthy growth in
flasks 1, 2, 5 and 6, where no toxin
was administered. A secondary
effect on the algae can be seen in
the response of Ankistrodesmus in
Figure 1. The absence of the
predator, Daphnia, in the toxic
groups allows Ankistrodesinus to
enjoy healthy growth.
Examination of the data by eye
thus reveals that although there
were four treatment groups, there
were really only two responses to
the four treatments. We wish to
find an analytical tool which will
confirm this, or, indeed, reveal it
in cases where it is not obvious to
the eye, and also give us some
indication of which species are
significantly associated with this
effect. In larger tests, and in field
Scefle eSmu5”
“ChlamydaIflofla ”
Figure 1 Biotic responses to the
SAM test. Treatment groups are
numbered from 1 to 8, and day
from 1 to 60
studies, the number of samples
and the number of species may be
orders of magnitude larger, and
the overall effect may be difficult
to discern.
Standard Approaches To
Multivariate Analysis
There are many approaches to
analytically expressing the
observed differences between
treatment groups or site locations.
Some of these approaches are
primarily graphical in nature, such
as principal components and
detrended correspondence analysis,
which are designed to reduce the
multivariate data to two
dimensions which can be inspected
and interpreted directly. These
techniques, however, still rely on
human judgement to determine
the strength and nature of possible
effects.
Another common approach to
multivariate data is to try to
reduce a sample, with its
associated measures on many
species, to a single number which
combines all these numbers into
one. The Shannon-Weaver
diversity index is an example. One
problem with this approach is
simply that it often does not work.
In our example SAM study, the
diversity indices are plotted in
Figure 3, and there does not
appear to be any strong indication
of two responses to the four
treatment groups.
Another approach to
understanding multivariate data is
to view each sample, with its
associated measurements on many
parameters (species, temperature,
p1-I, etc.), as a point in
n-dimensional space, where n is
the number of parameters. This
will permit summary statistics
about groups, which are collections
of sample points, in terms of
metric properties about a
collection of points in n-space.
This is the background to a wide
“Total Daphnia”
66
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Geoffrey and Robin Matthews
variety of approaches, including
multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) and an approach
based on similarity measures
(Smith et al., 1990). These
approaches show a great deal of
promise, but their reliance on the
n-dimensional metric approach to
multjvariate data leaves them all
subject to certain problems. First,
there is the choice of metric
function itself: Euclidean distance,
squared Euclidean distance, cosine
of vectors distance, Mahalanobis
distance, and many others all have
various features to recommend
them, but the choice of a
particular one for a particular
problem remains a difficult
decision. Second, there is the
sensitivity of many of these metrics
to scale. If we change one
parameter, for instance, from
millimeters to centimeters, we may
well change important distances in
n-space. If we normalize all
measures beforehand, for instance
by requiring unit variance, we face
the problem of justifying this
distortion of the data. For
example, it may well be that a
particular species has very small
variance over all groups. We are
then faced with the decision: do
we Knormalizeff this species and
magnify its variance to be in line
with the other species, or do we
make the decision to remove this
species from the data set before
analysis? Either decision has its
“P04
FIgure 2 Abiotic responses to
the SAM test. Treatment groups
are numbered from 1 to 8, and
day from 1 to 60
0
Algal Diversity
Figure 3 The difficulty with
single-number indices, such as
algal diversity, as character-
izations of community structure is
illustrated here for the SAM test
problems. Third, there is the
problem of incommensurable
parameters. Most of the
n-dimensional metrics require
combining parameters in some
fashion, for example, by summing
the squares. If the data set is very
mixed, however, what is the
justification for combining, say,
temperature and p1-I? How can we
meaningfully sum the squares of
counts for algae, fish, and clams?
Worse, how can we combine biotic
and abiotic measures? In any
event, what do such n-dimensional
distances mean?
In our work we have strived to
avoid the twin pitfalls of
oversimplification (as in diversity
indices) and a complex approach
involving n-dimensional metrics
which are difficult to interpret.
Nonmetric Clustering
Our approach is based, first, on
nonmetric clustering (Matthews
and Hearne, 1991), which we will
outline briefly here. Clustering is,
first, a technique of pattern
recognition. The idea is that a
data set of many points may
contain patterns or clusters, i.e. a
few sets of very similar points.
Describing a data set as 100
samples from each of three
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
67
-------
A MODEL FOR DESCRIBING COMMUNITY CHANGE
clusters is simpler, and more
accurate, than describing the same
data set as simply 300 points.
Therefore, the recognition of these
patterns in complex data is
paramount to understanding it on
a deeper level.
Traditional clustering
algorithms, unfortunately, rely on
distance measures or metrics in
n-dimensional space, just like the
approaches discussed above. A set
of points is divided into several
clusters based on the criterion that
the average within-cluster distance
should be smaller than the average
between-cluster distance. In other
words, two points are “similar”, or
“belong to the same pattern” if
their n-dimensional distance is
“small”. The differences between
the various algorithms for
clustering, agglomerative or
divisive, hierarchical or
partitioning, are mainly in how
these clusters are found. But in
each case, the criterion for
clustering validity still relies on an
n-dimensional distance or
similarity function. For the
reasons advanced in the previous
section, nonmetric clustering was
developed as a pattern recognition
technique which avoids reliance on
n-dimensional metrics.
The primary distinction of
nonmetric clustering is its
definition of clustering validity: a
clustering of data points is good if
the data and the clusters are
strongly associated. In other
words, if you know which cluster a
data point belongs to, then you
have a good idea of what kinds of
data values it will have. Suppose,
for instance, that the SAM data
(Figures 1 and 2) were divided
into two clusters, where samples
from flasks 1, 2, 5 and 6 were in
cluster “A” and samples from
flasks 3, 4, 7 and 8 were in cluster
“B”. Then you would know that if
a sample were from cluster “A” it
would, by about day 35, have large
numbers of Daphnia and small
numbers of Ankistrodesmus, and
vice versa if it were from “B”.
There may be some parameters
about which you know little, for
example Chlaniydwnonas, but the
important thing about a good
clustering is that, at least for some
parameters, it gives you a good
idea about the values for the
points in the clusters.
We have implemented
nonmetric clustering in a computer
program called RIFFLE
(Matthews and Hearne, 1991).
This program attempts to find the
best clustering for a given set of
data, where best is not defined in
terms of an n-dimensional metric,
but instead in terms of the
association between clusters and
parameter values of the data
points. The strongest association
between clusters and parameters,
for the largest number of
parameters, gives the best
clustering. We have used this
clustering program ona wide
range of data sets, and have found
it to be consistently superior to
traditional clustering algorithms
(Matthews, Matthews and Ehinger
1991; Matthews, Matthews and
Landis, 1990; Matthews, Matthews
and Hachmoller, 1990; Matthews,
1988). In the case of the SAM
data, a nonmetric clustering on day
35 showed that, indeed Daphnia
and Ankistrodesmus were strongly
associated with the best clustering.
Thus, nonmetric clustering
achieves both halves of the data
reduction task: the samples are
reduced to a few clusters, and the
parameters are reduced to those
few which are best associated with
the clusters. In the SAM case,
and in many of our other tests, the
parameters selected by nonmetric
clustering as the most significant
are in concert with the ones a
human expert would select.
Clustering and Association
Analysis
Clustering is only the first step
in the analysis of monitoring and
multispecies toxicity test data. The
clustering is done independently of
the treatment groups (or locations,
etc.). Clustering thus identifies
patterns in the data without
judging whether these patterns are
due to, or even associated with,
the treatment groups. The next
step is to analyze the association
between the clusters and the
groups. A strong association
between groups and clusters
indicates a significant effect
associated with the treatment or
location.
In our SAM data, nonmetric
clustering on day 35 divided the
samples into two clusters, one
consisting of all samples from
flasks 1, 2, 5 and 6, and a second
cluster consisting of all samples
from flasks 3, 4, 7 and 8. In other
words, a perfect division of the
samples into clusters “with” and
“without” the toxin. Since the
clustering was done “blind” with
respect to the actual treatment
groups, this is a striking result.
Under the null hypothesis, i.e.
that the treatment had no effect
on the clustering, such a match
between groups and clusters is far
less than 1% probable, leading us
to reject the null hypothesis at the
99% confidence level.
To make sure our analysis was
not biased in favor of two clusters,
we clustered the samples on each
sampling date into two, three, four,
and five clusters. If the four
treatment groups had led to, say,
four different responses, then the
association between the four
treatment groups and four clusters
would be higher than the
association between the four
treatment groups and two clusters.
As it turned out (Figure 4)
association analysis shows that the
strongest association was with only
two clusters.
68
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Geoffrey and Robin Matthews
data, traditional testing will not
reveal them unless they are
associated with the given treatment
groups. Our approach, however,
looks for patterns in the data
independently of the known
treatment groups. This pattern
analysis of the data can sometimes
identify effects that the researcher
did not know about; it can give
him or her “surprises” and reveal
new directions in research. In
other words, traditional tests can
tell you “yes” or “no” regarding the
questions you ask. They cannot
tell you “yes, but ...“.
LITERATURE CITED
Matthews, Geoffrey. 1988.
Clustering Heterogeneous
Ecological Data. Annual
Conference, International Society
for Ecological Modelling. Davis,
California.
Matthews, Geoffrey and James
Hearne. 1991. Clustering without a
metric. IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 13(2).
Matthews, Geoffrey, James
Hearne and Peter Sugarman. 1987.
Conceptual Clustering in the
Analysis of Environmental Data
Sets. NOAA Conference on
Artificial Intelligence Research in
Environmental Science. Boulder,
Colorado.
Matthews, Geoffrey, Robin
Matthews and Wayne Landis.
1990. Applications of nonmetric
clustering (NMC) to pattern
analysis in aquatic toxicology.
Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 11th
Annual Meeting. Arlington,
Virginia.
Matthews, Robin, Geoffrey
Matthews and Barnard
Hachinoller.1990. Ordination of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Along
a Longitudinal Stream Gradient,
Annual Conference, North
American Benthological Society.
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Matthews, Robin, Geoffrey
Matthews and William Ehinger.
1991. Classification and Ordination
of Limnological Data. Ecological
Modelling (In Press).
Smith, Eric P., Kurt W. Pontasch
and John Cairns Jr. 1990.
Community similarity and the
analysis of multispecies
environmental data: a unified
statistical approach. Water Res.
24(4): 507-514.
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
- 1’Ô 20 30 40 50 60
Day
Figure 4 Significance of match between blind clustering by
the Riffle algorithm and actual treatment groups. Optimal
clustering Is achieved using two clusters on day 28. Failure
to find a significant association for more than two clusters
supports the hypothesis of toxicity for degradation products.
CONCLUSIONS
Clustering and association
analysis is based on the answers to
the following questions:
1. Are there patterns in the data?
2. Are these patterns associated
with the treatment groups?
The answer to the first question
tells us whether there is anything
“happening” in the data at all. The
answer to the second question tells
us whether the treatment groups
are associated with this effect.
One of the benefits of this division
into two separate questions is that
nonmetric clustering can be used
in the pattern recognition phase
and so n-dimensional metrics need
not be used.
Finally, we would like to point
out that traditional significance
testing is implictly post hoc. It
attempts to determine only
whether or not a difference exists
between two given populations, the
treatment and control groups. If
there are, in fact, patterns in the
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECI’S BE MONITORED?
69
-------
A MODEL FOR DESCRIBING COMMUNITY CHANGE
Questions for Geoffrey Matthews:
0. This model, is it user friendly, or do you have to
have a computer degree to use it? And, is it
published?
A. It is in press, to answer your last question. It is not
production quality. I wouldn’t be real proud of it
if I released it right now. I’m not trying to hide it,
I just don’t want to be embarrassed when people
look at my software. We are working on putting
all the bells and whistles on it.
0. Is it PC or mainframe based?
A. The search, the clustering, takes a long time. Its
search takes a long time. When doing the
clustering, it looks through lots and lots of clusters.
You can run it on a PC, its written in “C.
Q. How can I get a copy?
A. I’ll give you my card. It’ll take a long time on a
PC. Probably do OK on a 386.
0. In your method, I like the analogy of putting a
nozzle on a fire hose, and if you put a nozzle on a
fire hose, that nozzle is metric, even though you
say it’s non-metric. Can your method be
summarized into throttling the flow into something
that can explain more things, better things?
A. There are two data reductions that are important,
and they are both present here. One is the
reduction of the number of variates, the number of
species, from 100 down to 5, or 2; 3 in the present
case. That’s one of the funnels. The other is,
instead of 100’s of points, 100’s of samples, you
have 2. Even though you have 100 samples, 50
from here and 50 from here. The important
difference is between this bunch and this bunch, so
you go from 100 to 2. You are reducing the
number of points; you are reducing the number of
variates.
0. But what I meant is, do you have a method of [ ?J
saying, Hah! Here it is. I didn’t know it!”
A. No, then you have to go to the ecologist. I’m the
mathematician. I don’t do any ‘Hah!” stuff. All
my stuff is boring. The exciting part is Wayne’s
and Robin’s. But it does in fact lead to those
things.
0. But does it tell you whether you are right or not?
A. It does more than that. It will tell you surprising
things. It will give you “A-hah!’s” You have to be
a scientist to recognize them. Like the time
nitrate came out. It said “Daphnia simodes,nus”,
and then “nitrate . I said, “Robin, why is nitrate
here?”, and she said “Hmm! I’m not sure. Maybe
its nutrient limiting, or something like that.” So all
of a sudden she was thinking about something she
had not thought about before. This will tell you
things that you may not have seen before.
0. What if you change the scales?
A. You will get exactly the same results, if you
change the scale on any or all of the variates. It
doesn’t depend on that.
70
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
DISCUSSION: HERBICIDE EFFECTS ON NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Pesticides and Rare Plants
Roger Rosentreter
U. S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
ABSTRACT
Distribution patterns of some native plants in rangelands appear to reflect the large scale use of
herbicides. Legumes are good biological indicators because the’ are more sensitive to herbicides than are
nany other species. The genus AstragaIu a legume, is one of the largest genera in North America and has
a high number of endemic species. Protection and monitoring of rare species is mandated by federal
agencies under the Endangered Species Act, so additional monitoring for pesticides would be logical and cost
effective. Case studies of several Idaho milk-vetches (Astragalus spp.) and one uncommon species of
sagebrush, Artemisia papposa, are presented.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED? 71
-------
DISCUSSION: HERBICIDE EFFECTS ON NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Monitoring Natural Plant Community
Response to Herbicide Contamination
Peter M. Rice
Division of Biological Sciences
University of Montana
ABSTRACT
The limited literature on the long-term response of plant communities to herbicide exposure is reviewed.
Direct herbicide treatments cause at least short-term shifts in relative composition, but diversity may decline,
increase or not statistically change. Herbicide impacts are often transito,y and overriden by biotic and
environmental factors. The experimental design of most studies was not adequate to measure small changes
in diversity. Natural plant community responses to indirect herbicide exposure are likely to be small.
Monitoring efforts would have very high costs.
INTRODUCTION
Pesticide applications
qualitatively differ from most
industrial pollutants or hazardous
spills. Pesticides are selected for
biological activity, deliberately
released to the environment, and
well documented benefits are
realized.
Herbicides comprise the
largest use category of pesticides
in North America. In the past
decade over 80% of pesticide use
was herbicides. The bulk of this
use was for controlling weeds
competing with crops on arable
land. Only a small percentage is
directly applied to natural plant
communites in silviculture
practices, for wildlife habitat
improvements or control of
noxious weed infestations. An
even smaller fraction of the
applied herbicides is deposited on
non-target plant communities as a
result of spray drift or
volatilization of surface and
incorporated residues.
A major goal of ecologists and
conservationist has been to
preserve native biological
communities. Along with physical
alteration of plant cover and
surface soils, invasions by exotic
species impoverishes and
homogenizes global biota. The
rate of exotic introductions
continues to increase with the
growth in world travel and
commerce (Mooney and Drake
1986, Coblentz 1990). Eurasian
plant species have been very
successful invaders in the northern
Rockies (Mack 1986). There is
increasing scientific documention
of exotic weeds supplanting native
species on undisturbed sites
(Forcella & Harvey 1983, Tyser &
Key 1988, Beicher & Wilson 1989).
What are the effects of
herbicides on plant species
diversity? Could environmental
scientists and plant ecologists
detect the impacts of herbicides on
plant communities that were not
directly subjected to herbicide
treatments?
PUBLISHED PLANT
DIVERSITY STUDIES
Very little work has been
published on the effect of
herbicides on plant diversity. The
available studies can be broken in
to two categories. Studies which
focus on the diversity of weed
species on intensively managed
lands such as plowed fields and
pasutures; and studies which
measure some response of natural
plant communities to herbicide
treatment of extensively managed
lands such as roadsides, rangelands
and forests. Herbicides are
generally applied to plowed lands
to kill all plant species except for
the crop species. Herbicides are
generally applied to non-crop lands
to control a single weed species or
favor a larger complex of species
by stressing a smaller group.
Chancellor (1979) suggests that
since herbicides have been used
most frequently on arable lands
that is where the long-term effects
on plant diversity would be most
apparent. Rather than a single
weed species infesting a crop,
plowed fields typically contain
many competing weed species. In
his review of British and European
plowed field studies he concludes
that there is no evidence that
herbicides have extirpated a single
weed in any country, although a
considerable reduction in
individual fields was common, or
even local eradication may have
occurred.,
72
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Rice
A 7 year study of a wheat field
community did not reveal any
change in species richness
although the density of individual
species changed on plots receiving
various herbicide treatments
(Thurston 1969). Chancellor
(1985) sampled the weed species
for 20 years in a pasture that was
converted to grain crop cultivation.
Various herbicide treatments were
used on the field. An influx of
new arable land weeds contributed
to a peak species richness of 55
four years after first plowing the
pasture. Thereafter a majority of
the perennial grassland weed
species dropped out under
cultivation and species richness
was relatively constant between 23
& 35. The fluctuation was
attributed to variation in the
occurrence of infrequent species
from year to year. Hume (1987)
determined the weed community
composition of replicated wheat
field plots that had received 2,4-D
applications for 36 years in
contrast to plots without herbicide
treatments. Species abundance
differed, but no species were
eliminated by the herbicide.
Road edges (verges) provide
important wildlife and native plant
habitat in the United Kingdom
because of the extensive
conversion of the landscape to
human use (Way 1977, Sheail
1985). Roadside vegetation was
annually treated with 2,4-D at high
rates (3-6.5 lbs/ac). Balme (1954,
1956) reported reduction of the
abundance of dicots, including the
eradication of a few species in the
spray swath. Natural changes in
floristic composition from year to
year were as significant as the
changes induced by spraying.
Willis (1972) continued to study
2,4-D on roadsides for 15 years.
He measured reduced dicot
species richness and enhanced turf
forming grass components. After
3-4 years relatively stable
communities had been established
and no new species colonized the
study plots.
High rates (3 lbs/ac) of 2,4-D
have been applied to grasslands in
the western US to control gophers
by reducing the dicots which
provided seeds as a food supply.
Frequency of occurrence of forbs
was reduced while the graminoid
fraction increased (Turner 1969,
Tietjen et al. 1967). Total plant
biomass remains the same as
resistant plants utilize limiting
resources previously use by
susceptible species (Thilenius
1975). Discontinuation of
spraying allowed the forb
component to increase again
(Tietjen et al. 1967). Malone
(1972) reported that all species
recovered sooner or later following
a 7 lbs/ac application of sodium
cacodylate, a non-selective
arsenical, to a fescue meadow in
Tennessee.
Large acreages of sagebrush
dominated lands in the western US
were treated with 2,4-D at 2 or
more lbs/ac to increase grass
production for livestock. Hendrick
et al. (1966) collected data for 3
years pretreatment and 8 years
after spraying. Herbage (forb plus
grass) production at least doubled
as sagebrush declined. On poor
condition rangelands the increase
was primarily from annual grasses.
On fair condition rangelands the
biggest increase were by perennial
grasses. Evans and Young (1985)
followed grass and forb Succession
for 7 years after control of western
juniper with picloram at more than
1.9 kg/ha. Annual grasses
increased while broadleaf annuals
decreased.
Forest communities are
sometimes treated with very high
herbicide rates for silvicultural and
military goals. Sterrett & Adams
(1977) measured diversity in
hardwood dominated forests
treated with 5.6 & 11.2 kg/ha of
fenuron or tree injected 2,4,5- T.
The management goal was to
eliminate hardwood competition to
favor pine plantings. Three
growing seasons after treatment 27
more species were found on the
treated plots than on the untreated
controls. The number of
individuals of some species
declined on the treated plots, while
the abundance of other species
increased. Shipman (1972) also
reported increased species richness
for a hardwood forest community
following treatment with high rates
of fenuron. The elimination of the
overstory led to increased grass,
forb and shrub production,
including important browse species
for deer. Species richness had
doubled 5 years after herbicide
application in contrast to untreated
control plots.
Dowler et al. (1968) measured
succession in Puerto Rican tropical
forests treated with six different
herbicides at rates of 3 to 27
lbs/ac. They were evaluating
herbicides for the Viet Nam war
spray Program. Total defoliation
was short lived even at the 27
lbs/ac rate. There was no definite
relation between treatment and
secondary succession, except that
the number and frequency of
successional species were greater
on plots having the highest
percentage of defoliation.
Increased light penetration and
rainfall avaliability appeared to be
more important than herbicide
treatment.
DISCUSSION
Poor experimental designs and
lack of power to adequately test
species diversity hypotheses limits
the interpetation of most studies of
herbicide impacts on plant
communities. Pretreatment
community data was usually not
taken. The herbicide factor was
often confounded with
uncontrolled factors including
differing agricultural practices,
annual climatic variability and
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
73
-------
PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO HERBICIDES
preferential grazing by livestock or
wildlife. Treatments were often
not replicated or too few in
number. Even in arable land weed
studies, which arc less complex
than natural communities,
coefficients of variation are usually
5-10% or greater. With 3-4
replications the treatment
differences must exceed the grand
mean by 10% to be statisically
significant (Cousens Ct al. 1988).
Smaller shifts in diversity will be
judged non-significant. The 36
year wheat field weed species
study by Hume (1987) is the most
rigorously designed study in the
literature.
The primary objective of most
studies of herbicide impacts on
plant communities was not to test
formal hypotheses concerning
plant diversity, but rather to
evaluate expected benefits from
management practices. Few
studies have attempted to directly
obtain a measure of plant diversity
such as species richness,
eveness/dominance, or diversity
indices such as the Shannon
function. Measures of relative
abundance, frequency of
occurrence or biomass by life form
and broad taxonomic classes were
more typical. Diversity
enumeration for natural
communities requires sampling
crews with well developed field
taxonomy skills. A multitude of
species must be recognized
throughout various stages of their
life cycles, perhaps from seedling
emergence to late season
dormancy. Lewis (1988) suggests
diversity profiles to portray
impacts of forest and range
management practices on species
diversity.
Ecology textbooks and
environmental effects monographs
(Way & Chancellor 1976, Schubert
1983) periodically cite studies
which report decreases in plant
species diversity in natural
communities. These need to be
interpeted in context of the
management goals and the
herbicide practices used to obtain
those goals. They often have been
the control of woody vegetation,
canopy reduction for military
objectives, or changing the forage
base supporting components of
higher trophic levels. These goals
typically required high rates of
herbicide or repeat applications.
It can be misleading to extrapolate
the responses of high rate
applications to predict response to
lower rate spay programs and
drift depositon. Herbicide effects
on the community are often
transitory, even with high rates of
non- selective herbicides.
The diversity of some
communities increases as herbicide
treatments reduce the density of
dominant species and release
limiting resources for less
competitive plant species. This
response is particularly evident
with forest canopy reductions.
Many rarer plant species only
establish in shade gaps, on bare
soil microsites, when moisture
availability is high, and with other
transitory habitat conditions.
Successful exotics are pre-adapted
to the climatic and edaphic
conditions of the invaded
ecosystems. These plants generally
have escaped the grazers, insects,
parasites and disease organisms
that co-evolved in their native
habitat. The competitive pressure
from unrestrained exotics on
native plant species is continuous,
while stress from a herbicide
exposure is transitory. Herbicide
injury susceptibility ratings of
plants from pot and greenhouse
trials do not provide a firm basis
for predicting natural community
response with its complex of
competing species and multiple
stresses.
REFERENCES
Balme, O.E. 1954. Preliminary
experiments on the effect of
selective weedkiller 2,4-D on the
vegetation of roadside verges.
Proc. 1st. British Weed Cont.
Conf, p 219-228.
Balme, O.E. 1956. Conclusions of
experiments on the effect of
selective weedkiller 2,4-D on the
vegetation of roadside verges.
Proc. 2nd. British Weed Cont.
Conf. pp. 771-778.
Beicher, LW. & S.D. Wilson.
1989. Leafy spurge and the
species composition of a
mixed-grass praire. J. Range
Manage 42:172-175.
Chancellor, RJ. 1979. The
long-term effects of herbicides on
weed populations. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 91:121-146.
Chancellor, R.J. 1985. Changes in
the weed flora of an arable field
cultivated for 20 years. J. Appl.
Ecol. 22:491-501.
Coblentz, B.E. 1990. Exotic
organisms: A dilemma for
conservation biology. Cons. Biol.
4:261-265.
Cousens, R., E.J.P. Marshall &
G.M. Arnold. 1988. Problems in
the interpretation of effects of
herbicides on plant communities.
In: Methods for the study of
environmental effects of pesticides.
British Crop Protection Council
Monograph No. 40. Eds:
Greaves, M.P., B.D. Smith &
P.W. Greig-Smith. pp. 275-282.
Dowler, C.C., W. Forestier F.H.
Tschirley. 1968. Effect and
persistence of herbicides applied to
soil in Puerto Rican forests. Weed
Sci. 16:45-50.
Evans, RA. & J.A. Young.
1985. Plant succession following
control of western juniper
( Juniperus occidentalis ) with
picloram. Weed Sci. 33:63-68.
74
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Rice
( luniperus occidentalis ) with
picloram. Weed Sci. 33:63-68.
Forcella, F. & S.J. Harvey. 1983.
Eurasian weed infestation in
western Montana in relation to
vegetation and disturbance.
Madrono 30:102-109.
Greaves, M.P., B.D. Smith &
P.W. Greig-Smith (eds). 1988.
Field methods for the study of
environmental effects of pesticides.
Monograph No. 4 J. British Crop
Protection Council. Thorton
Heath. 370 p.
Hedrick, D.W., D.N. Hyder, F.A.
Sneva & C.E. Poulton. 1966.
Ecological response of
sagebrush-grass range in Central
Oregan to mechanical and
chemical removal of Artemisip .
Ecol. 47:432- 439.
Hume, L. 1987. Long-term
effects of 2,4-D applications on
plants. 1. Effects on the weed
community in a wheat crop. Can.
J. Bot. 65:2530-2536.
Lewis, C.E., B.E. Swindel & G.W.
Tanner. 1988. Species diversity
and diversity profiles: concept,
measurement, and application to
timber and range management. J.
Range Manage. 41:466-469.
Mack, R.N. 1986. Alien plant
invasions in the intermountain
west. A case history. In: Ecology
of biological invasions in North
America and Hawaii. Eds:
Mooney, HA & J.A. Drake. pp.
191- 213.
Malone, C.R. 1972. Effects of
non-selective arsenical herbicide
on plant biomass and community
structure in a fescue meadow.
Ecol. 53:507-512.
Marshall, E.J.P. 1985. Field and
field edge floras under different
herbicide regimes at the Boxworth
E. H. F. - Initial studies. Proc.
1985 Brit. Crop Protecton Conf. -
Weeds 3, 999- 1006. In: Cousens,
R., E.J.P. Marshall & G.M.
Arnold. 1988. Problems in the
interpretation of effects of
herbicides on plant communities.
Mooney, HA & J.A. Drake.
1986. Ecology of biological
invasions in North America and
Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New
York. 32lp.
Schubert, R. 1983. Effects of
biocides and growth regulators:
Ecological implications. In:
Physiological plant ecology IV,
Ecosystem processes: Mineral
cycling, productivity and man’s
influence. Eds: Lange, O.L., P.S.
Noble, C.B. Osmond & H.
Ziegler. Springer-Verlag, New
York. pp. 393-411.
Sheail, J. 1985. Pesticides and
nature conservation. Clarendon
Press, Oxford. 2 ’76p.
Shipman, RD. 1972. Converting
low-grade hardwood forests to
Japanese larch with fenuron
herbicide. Tree Planter’s Notes
24(2): 1-3.
Sterrett, J. & R.A. Adams. 1977.
The effect of forest conversion
with herbicides on pine, Pinus
spp., establishment, soil moisture
and understory vegetation. Weed
Sci. 25:521-523.
Thilenius, J.F., G.R. Brown &
C.C. Kaltenbach. 1975. Treating
forb-dominated subalpine range
with 2,4-D: Effects on herbage and
cattle diets. J. Range Manage.
28:311-315.
Thurston, J.M. 1969. Weed
studies on Broadbalk. Report of
Rothamsted Experimental Station
for 1968, Part 2. 186-208. In:
Chancellor, R.J. 1979. The
long-term effects of herbicides on
weed populations. Ann. Appi.
Biol. 91:121-146.
Tietjen, H.P., C.H. Halvorson,
P.L. Hegdal & A.M. Johnson.
1967. 2,4-D herbicide, vegetation
and pocket gopher relationships on
Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecol.
48:635-643.
Turner, G.T. 1969. Responses of
mountain grassland vegetation to
gopher control, reduced grazing,
and herbicide. J. Range Manage.
22:377-383.
Tyser, R.W. & C.W. Key. 1988.
Spotted knapweed in natural area
fescue grasslands: An ecological
assessment. Northwest Sci.
62(4): 151-160.
Way, J.M. 1977. Roadside verges
and conservation in Britain: a
review. Biol. Cons. 12:65-74.
Way, J.M. & RJ. Chancellor.
1976. Herbicides and higher plant
ecology. In: Herbicides, Vol. II.
Ed: Andus, U. Academic Press,
New York. pp. 345-372.
Willis, AJ. 1972. Long-term
ecological changes in sward
composition following application
of maleic hydrazide and 2,4-D.
Proc. 11th. British Weed Cont.
Conf. pp. 360-367.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
75
-------
Session Ill. Terrestrial Systems: Ann Fairbrother, Chair
A. Soils and Plants
Difficulties in Assigning Cause:
A Case Study
Karl H. Arne
EPA Region 10
(article)
Bioresponse of Nontarget Organisms
Resulting from the Use of Chioropicrin
to Control Laminated Root Rot in a Northwest Conifer Forest:
Part 1. Installation of Study
Walter G. Thies, Michael A. Castellano, Elaine R. Ingham,
Daniel L. Luoma, and Andrew R. Moldenke
(article)
Part 2. Evaluation of Bioresponses
Elaine R. IngJ am, Walter G. Thies, Daniel L. Luoma, Andrew R. Moldenke and Michael A. Castellano.
(article)
B. Fish and Wildlife, including non-game animals .
Birds and Pesticides
Anne Fairbrother, DVM, PHD
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory/ORD
(abstract)
Effects of Pesticides on Upland Game:
a Review of Herbicides and Organophosphate
and Carbamate Insecticides
John W. Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
Lawrence J. Blus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
(article)
76 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Difficulties in Assigning Cause:
A Case Study
Karl H. Arne
EPA Region 10
Seattle, Washington
ABSTRACT
The difficulty of determining the cause of damage to plants will be illustrated by describing an ongoing
controversy in Southeastern Washington State. For several years growers in and around Badger Canyon, near the
Tn-Cities, have complained that herbicides applied to wheat fields in the adjacent Horse Heaven Hills have
drifted and caused damage to their crops. This spring several growers again complained of crop damage due to
drifted herbicides. In response to this, Dr. John Fletcher, who is on the faculty of the Depaitrnent of Botany and
Microbiology at the University of Oklahoma and who was on detail at ORD-Corvalljs last summer, made a tour
of some of the farms where damage had been claimed. He also toured the Washington State University
F xperiment Station at Prosser, where research was being conducted on the effects of herbicides to several plants.
Dr. Fletcher documented this trip with pictures and an audio tape, and this information will be presented along
with views of some of the affected growers and the professional staff at the Prosser station.
Introduction
For many years damage to
crops in Badger Canyon, near the
Tn-Cities area of Southeastern
Washington State, has been
attributed to herbicides drifting off
the wheat fields of the near-by
Horse Heaven Hills.
Reports of damage due to
drifting herbicides started shortly
after these materials were first
used in the late 1940s. Over the
years, the Washington State
Department of Agriculture has
taken many actions to reduce the
amount of damage caused by
herbicide drift. The first rule
restricting the application of 2,4-D
in certain areas of Benton and
Pranklin counties was adopted in
1953. Other restrictions in the
l 9 50s included limiting the
application of 2,4-D to the amine
form or low volatile esters in
Certain areas, or prohibiting the
use of 2,4-D in the Yakima Valley
and portion of the Horse Heaven
Hills. Restrictions regarding
nozzle sizes, requiring dedicated
Sprayers for weed control work,
prohibition of dust formulations,
prohibition of oil carriers,
prohibition of evening spraying,
and gallonage requirements for
both air and ground application
have been put into place over the
years. More recent rules restrict
aerial application of sulfonylurea
herbicides in parts of the Horse
Heaven Hills, and have prohibited
the aerial application of diquat and
paraquat
These rules notwithstanding,
many Badger Canyon growers
claim that their crops continue to
be damaged by herbicide drift. A
difficulty that has arisen is that the
newer herbicides can cause
damage at levels so low that the
herbicides cannot be chemically
detected in the plants.
Furthermore, for many plants the
effects of these newer herbicides
are not well understood. The
diversified crops in Badger Canyon
also make the diagnosis more
difficult. The different crops show
different patterns of damage and
stress, making it difficult to
determine any pattern that might
give a clue to the cause. The
damage may be at low or
moderate levels relative to the
ability of the plant to survive, but
still quite important economically.
The damage may be reduced fruit
set, abnormal growth patterns,
reduced yields, chiorotic spotting,
and other foliar symptoms.
The Badger Canyon dilemma is
exacerbated by the possibility of
several sources of stress, some
“natural” and some from
herbicides. There also exists a
seemingly endless possibility of
combinations of stresses (cold
weather plus herbicide A, a plant
made susceptible to a virus by
herbicide B, the effects of
herbicide A plus herbicide B, and
on and on and on).
Damage to crops because of
off-target movement of herbicides
is not uncommon. Often the cause
can be established by detection of
the herbicide in the damaged crop
or by the unique symptoms
exhibited in the damaged crop.
Also, the damaged crop may show
a pattern of drift: the side of the
field closest to the source of the
drift is more heavily damaged, and
the damage decreases as the
distance from the source increases.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
77
-------
DIFFICULTIES iN ASSIGNING CAUSE
However, this diagnostic aid has
not been present in the Badger
Canyon even when positive
analyses for allegedly drifted
herbicides are present. Because
many farms in the area apply
herbicides, and could be the
source of a positive detection, it is
usually not possible to link any
particular evidence of herbicide
contamination with a specific
application.
For this conference, the
interest in this situation is the
difficulty in determining the cause
of the damage to non-target
plants, and though I’m going to
talk about damage to cultivated
crops, the difficulties encountered
here are likely to be similar to
those found in determining effects
in non-cultivated areas, or natural
communities. Arguably the effects
in cultivated crops should be easier
to discern and more likely to be
noticed because of the economic
interest and constant observations
of the farmers.
Last spring, several growers in
the Badger Canyon area again
complained of damage due to
drifted herbicides. About that
same time Hilnian Ratsch of the
GRID lab in Corvallis called me to
ask whether the regional office had
any concerns that ORD might
address. We talked of the Badger
Canyon-Horse Heaven Hills
situation, and agreed that there
might be some possibilities for
research that would help address
this problem. This led to the visit
of that area by Dr. John Fletcher,
a plant physiologist from the
University of Oklahoma who
worked last summer for the ORD
lab.
in late May, Dr. Fletcher
visited the Horse Heaven Hills-
Badger Canyon area, talked to
some growers, visited the
experiment station at Prosser, and
documented this trip with pictures
and a narrative tape. Ills visit was
about one month after farmers
complained of damage. He also
visited the Washington State
University experiment station at
Prosser and observed some of the
work being done on herbicides.
Dr. Fletcher produced two sets
of slides, one showing the research
on sulfonylurea herbicides being
conducted at the Prosser
Experiment Station, and showing
crops near Benton City, in Badger
Canyon, and near Finley. These
slides will be shown along with
some of the comments of Dr.
Fletcher and of others who have
observed some of the same plant
damage.
Again, the purpose of this talk
is to show some of the difficulties
encountered when attempting to
determine the cause of damage to
plants. The following discussions
include primarily comments
extracted from Dr. Fletcher’s
narrative description of his visit to
the Prosser Experiment Station
and several area farms. In the
discussion of damage to non-target
crops, the comments of the
Washington State University
Response Team are given. 2 This
is done to point of the difficulty
there is in coming to firm
conclusions about the source of
damage in the face of a number of
possible stresses. Farmers
claiming damage attribute the
cause to drifted herbicides, but
others may determine that the
cause is insects, virus, frost,
disease, nutrient deficiency, or
poor crop management. No
attempt is made here to arrive at
any conclusions about the source
of crop damage.
Sulfonylurea Research at the
Prosser Experiment Station
In the Spring of 1990, the
Prosser experiment station began
research on the effects of several
herbicides on the following plants:
alfalfa, grapes, roses, and cherries.
Dr. Fletcher’s visit occurred about
one month after these plants had
been treated with different levels
of one of the following herbicides:
Glean, Harmony, 2,4-D,
Landinaster, glyphosate, and
bromoxynil. The treatment rates
were one-third, one-tenth, one-
thirtieth, and one-hundredth of the
field rate as well as control groups.
Dr. Fletcher’s slides showed only
the two concentrations (the one-
third and one-hundredth rates) of
Glean and 2,4-D and their effect
on cherries, grapes, and roses.
Cherries. The cherry trees
used were young, not yet
producing fruit. In administering
the herbicides, a screen was placed
behind each tree to prevent
contamination of other trees, and
the tree was sprayed with a
backpack type sprayer. The
control trees looked quite healthy,
with nice green leaves, and the
apices at the top quite normal
looking. The trees treated with
the one-third field application of
2,4-D showed considerable curling
of leaves, extended internodes, and
leaves at the top were not fully
expanded.
Cherries treated with one-third
the field rate of Glean were quite
severely affected. The leaves were
brown and desiccated and
apparently most trees in this
treatment group died.
Cherry trees treated with 2,4-D
at one-hundredth of the field rate
showed little effect. The trees
looked healthy, and the upper
branches look normal, in contrast
to trees treated at the higher rates.
Cherry trees treated with Glean at
one hundredth of the field rate
showed some effects. The leaves
were a bit curled, and at the top
there was some leaf damage. All
trees Glean treated at this low rate
showed a similar effect.
The researchers at Prosser later
reported that the trees treated at
78
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Arne
the lower rate of Glean grew out”
of the symptoms later in the
summer and were substantially
similar to control trees
Grapes
Control grapes appeared quite
healthy, with no apparent
abnormalities, good-sized with
green healthy looking leaves.
Grapes treated with Z4-D at one-
thixd of the field rate showed a
dramatic response: brown,
desiccated leaves, and poor growth
in general. Glean at one-third the
field rate also produced a dramatic
effect. The plants were quite
stunted, and the top leaves were
yellow or brown, or in some cases,
missing.
At the lowest concentration of
2,4-D, grape plants looked
reasonably healthy. The grapes
had set, and the leaves showed
good color. There was some
indication that the apices were not
quite normal, but the size was
good.
In contrast, one-hundredth of
the field rate of Glean produced
stunted grape plants of poor color.
These plants appear to have
suffered more than those treated
with 2,4-D or any other herbicides
in this study.
Roses
Control roses appeared quite
healthy, and were in bloom at the
tune that these slides were taken.
Roses treated with 2,4-D at 1/100
field rate showed some variability,
but had good size and color.
Roses treated with Glean at
one-hundredth of the field rate
showed significant effects. The
Younger portion of the plant
presented pale or yellow leaves,
and the plants were stunted. At
higher concentrations, the
response was much more dramatic.
While the effects of Glean at
low levels appeared to be
significant, the researchers at the
Prosser Experiment station
pointed out that the plants had by
late summer grown out of that
state to a substantial degree It
appeared that while low levels of
the sulfonylureas could have a
dramatic effect on the appearance
of plants, this did not necessarily
mean that the health of the plants
was seriously impaired.
Tour of Badger Canyon
After visiting the experiment
station, Dr. Fletcher visited several
farms in the Badger Canyon area,
from Kiona, Northwest of the
canyon, southwest to Finley at the
far end of the canyon. In several
instances he saw damage to crops
that he feels could have been
caused by herbicides. Some of
these crop damage claims have
been investigated by scientists
from Washington State University,
and the majority of the symptoms
are attributed to something other
than herbicides.
Badger Canyon is about twenty
miles long its long axis running
east-west. it is bounded on the
south by the Horse Heaven Hills,
which gradually rise up several
hundred feet from the canyon
floor, giving more the appearance
of a gently sloping valley than a
canyon. North of Badger Canyon
are a series of smaller hills or low
ridges (Red Mountain, Badger
Mountain, and others). The
natural vegetation is sage and
native grasses, and the average
annual precipitation is low, usually
10 inches a year or less. Irrigated
crops grown in the canyon include
apples, plums, cherries, peaches,
apricots, grapes, alfalfa, asparagus,
and some ornamentals.
Dr. Fletcher visited an
orchardist near Benton City who
grew apricots, apples, and cherries.
For both the apricots and cherries,
fruit set had been very poor, and
very little crop was realized in
1990. The grower in the attributes
the poor fruit set to the effects of
sulfonylurea herbicides, feeling
that the early season application of
these herbicides to the Horse
Heaven Hills may have had an
affect on the cherry or apricot
trees’ ability to set fruit. The
investigation by Washington State
University concluded that the
damage was caused either by birds
in one orchard and by frost in
another The grower disputes
this, citing the absence of birds at
the time of the damage, and the
absence of significant cold
weather. He also cites the history
of weather in the area and that
this orchard has historically not
been subject to frost damage.
Examination of the cherry trees
showed forked apices, an
indication that the apices had been
killed and that the lateral buds had
been released. Many cherry trees
bad no fruit set, and those with
less fruit set tended to be closer to
the Horse Heaven Hills. The
apricot trees also showed forked
apices. Only one apricot tree in
this orchard could be found with
fruit on it.
In the same farm there was an
apple orchard that appeared to be
damaged. Most trees in this
orchard has one or more of the
following symptoms: leaves not
expanded, short internodes,
deformed leaves, leaves absent, or
abnormal growth pattern at the
end of the branch.
Moving down Badger Canyon,
an asparagus field was visited.
The grower said that the field had
showed dramatic signs of damage
in the previous year, primarily
curling, and that they had not
come back this year in a proper
fashion. The grower also reported
that it had been a very weak field
this year.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
79
-------
DIFFICULTIES IN ASSIGNING CAUSE
Dr. Fletcher then went to
Finley to another orchard, where
he observed young peach trees.
Their growth did not appear
normal. The internodes were
extremely short, and the leaves
malformed. The report of the
Washington State University
Pesticide Response Team
concludes that “propagation
techniques used in the blocks likely
contributed to the poor growth
observed ”
Conclusion
Dr. Fletcher was careful to
point out that the damage he
observed could not be easily
explained. He felt that it may
have been caused by herbicides,
but that there is no conclusive
evidence to support this.
Thorough investigation of some of
the crop damage claims by
Washington State University
Faculty resulted in the conclusion
that, while there were some
symptoms that could not be
explained, the most severe effects
observed could be explained by
frost damage or bird damage and
or poor grafting techniques. They
also reported some symptoms for
which no ,lausible explanation is
presented. These conclusions are
viewed with some skepticism by
the affected growers, and in any
case the data supporting these or
any other conclusions about the
source of the damage are less than
compelling.
This report is presented as an
example of the difficulties that may
be encountered in trying to
determine the cause of plant
damage. Differentiating the
symptoms that might be caused by
herbicides from those symptoms
that might be caused by natural
stresses (virus, disease, frost,
insect, nutrient deficiency, and
perhaps others) will be a challenge
for those who wish to monitor for
the effects of herbicides in natural
systems.
References
1) Hoffman, Joe. A History of
Pesticide Rules in Benton County,
Washington, 1953 to 1989.
Published by Washington State
Department of Agriculture (1989).
2) Mink, G. I. and W. E. Howell.
An Evaluation of Problems
Alleged to be Caused by Herbicide
Drift into Badger Canyon during
April, 1990. June, 1990.
3) Al-Khatib, K. Personal
communication, February, 1991
Questions for Karl Arne
Q. I’ve heard it said that in Benton
County since they banned the
use of 2,4-D, the farmer has to
use mechanical tilling to control
weeds, and that has led to a
significant increase in wind
erosion. I don’t remember that
they banned 2,4-D in Benton
County.
Q. They can’t apply it aerially.
A. Is it your point that there would
be an increase in dust, and this
may...?
Q. [ difficult to follow, but
discussion around the question
of whether wheat fields ever
were weedy and soil bound
better than now.]
0. Would you expect to see a
gradient effect according to the
proximity of the trees to the
source?
A. Initially, you would expect that,
but I’m skeptical now. I think
it may move and then drop, or
there might be other
mechanisms in effect. I think
drift is one of the most poorly
understood things there is.
0. A little bit different model than
this, but In sampling aquatic
systems for drifting insects in
response to an adjacent carbaryl
spray project, you’ll see an
immediate response of drifting
insects, even when you are a
mile away from the stream, and
sometimes you will see the
pesticide move up and over and
then drop into a different wind
pattern.
80
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Bioresponse of Nontarget Organisms
Resulting from the Use of Chioropicrin
to Control Laminated Root Rot
in a Northwest Conifer Forest:
Part 1. Installation of Study
by
Walter G. Thies 1 , Michael A. Castellano 1 , Elaine R. IngEam 2 ,
Daniel L. Luom ?, and Andrew R. Moldenke 2 .
Author affiliation: ‘Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 2 State University; all are
stationed in Corvallis, OR.
ABSTRACT
Laminated root rot is a major root disease problem in the West. Several flimigants have been found
effective in reducing or completely eradicating the pathogen from infested stumps and roots. In 1989 EPA
approved the use of chioropicrin as a stump treatment to control laminated root rot. Reports detailing
chioropicrin concentration in the environment as a result of the treatment or the potential impacts of
chloropicrin on nontarget forest organisms are lacking. A disease control study was established to further
evaluate the effectiveness and cost of stump application of chloropicrin to control laminated root. The
bioresponse study described here will take advantage of plots and treated stumps established for the disease
control study by monitoring treated areas and quanti ing the changes in four segments of the ecosystem likely
to be sensitive to chloropicrin: vascular plant community, detrital foodweb, soil ?nicroarthropods, and
mycorrhizae formation. Due to the anticipated slow release of chioropicrin from the stumps, monitoring will
continue for 3 years. Only preliminary results are available now.
INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
Laminated root rot
Laminated root rot is
widespread throughout the range
of Douglas-fir (Pseudoisuga
inenziesij (Mirb.) Franco).
Douglas-fir is the most
economically important host, but
nearly all conifers seem to be
susceptible to some degree. The
disease reduces forest productivity
annually by about 4.4 million m 3
(Childs and Shea 1967, Nelson et
al. 1981).
When infected trees die, the
pathogen continues to live
saprophytically in infested butts
and large roots for as long as 50
years (Childs 1963, Hansen 1976,
1979). Infection in a young stand
begins when roots of young trees
contact residual infested stumps
and roots from the preceding
stand. The infection spreads
between living trees through root
contacts (Wallis and Reynolds
1965). Immediate succession by
Douglas-fir or other highly
susceptible species on a site
infested with Phellinus weiril often
results in more disease and heavier
losses in the new stand (Wallis and
Reynolds 1965).
Fumigation for control of
laminated root rot
Fumigation is one means of
reducing inoculum of some root
rotting fungi (Thies 1984).
Reports of fumigant application to
soil as well as directly to wood to
destroy particular fungi have been
reviewed previously (Filip 1976;
Thies and Nelson 1982, 1987). In
1989 use of chloropicrin to reduce
inoculum of laminated root rot in
Douglas-fir stumps was approved
by the Environmental Protection
Agency. While silvicultural
manipulations will remain the most
widely used control for laminated
root rot, fumigation will be an
alternative tool available to the
land manager.
DISEASE CONTROL STUDY
The disease control study was
established to determine the cost
and degree of reduction in the
reappearance of laminated root rot
in a replacement stand using
chloropicrin as a stump treatment.
Stumps were fumigated during
October 1988, and the area was
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
81
-------
NONTARGET BIORESPONSE TO CHLOROPICRIN: 1. INSTALLATION OF STUDY
intervals of 2 years to record
seedling growth and mortality.
Study Area
The study area is an 8-ha
clearcut on a 2% south-facing
slope on the Olympic Peninsula
near Matlock, WA (latitude 47)
14’ N.; Longitude 12 25’ W);
mean elevation is 175 m; mean
annual precipitation is 125 cm; soil
in the study area is a Hoodsport
Gravelly Sandy Loam. The
Hoodsport soil series formed in
glacial deposits of 50 to 75 cm of
loose ablation till overlaying very
compact lodgement till. The site
is class III (McArdle et al. 1961),
and supported a 65-year-old
naturally regenerated stand that
was predominantly Douglas-fir
(99% by harvest volume).
Western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla (Raf.)Sarg.)
constituted the remainder of the
overstory. The understory was
primarily salal (Gaultheria shallon
Pursh) with some sword fern
(Polystichurn munitun2 (Kaulf.)
Presl) and a lesser component of
twin flower (Linnaea borealis L).
Plots
The study area was subdivided,
systematically searched, and the
location of each P. weirii infested
stump was mapped (Thies and
Hoopes 1979). Using a map
depicting the locations of infested
stumps, circular, 0.04-ha,
nonoverlapping treatment plots
were established in the study area
in locations to include
concentrations of infested stumps.
An inoculum index (INOC) was
calculated for each infested stump,
based on stump diameter and
stump condition, and summed to
get a total INOC for each plot.
Based on total INOC, plots were
stratified into 8 blocks of 4 plots
each.
Treatments
Treatment involved application
of chioropicrin at either 100% or
20% of the labeled dosage, and
either all stumps were treated or
only those with stain (or advanced
decay) typical of P. weirli were
treated. Three chloropicrin
treatments and an untreated check
were randomly assigned within
each group of four plots in a
block:
1. check (nothing done to the
stumps);
2. 100%, all stumps;
3. 20%, all stumps;
4. 100%, stain only stumps. The
label dosage is about 3.3 ml of
chloropicrin per kilogram of
stump and root biomass.
Application of fumigant
Treatment holes, 3.2 cm
diameter, were drilled vertically
into each stump top either at
stained areas when present, or in
unstained wood. Stumps with a
diameter of 32.5 cm or less had a
minimum of four treatment holes
drilled, one in each quadrant of
the stump top; larger stumps had
at least eight treatment holes
drilled with at least two in each
quadrant of the stump top. To
avoid drilling through the stump,
holes extended only slightly below
the soil line. A dose of
chloropicrin was distributed
equally to all holes in a stump.
After fumigant application, each
hole was plugged tightly with a
hemlock dowel that was sealed to
resist passage of the fumigant.
MEASURING BIORESPONSE TO
CHLOROPICRIN
IN A FOREST ECOSYSTEM
Ecological impacts of chloropicrin
Chioropicrin
(trichioronitromethane) is a
general biocide that has been used
as a soil fumigant and studied for
its effectiveness in reducing
specific pests; however,
examination of the literature does
not provide a basis for predicting
the effects of chloropicrin applied
to stumps on nontarget organisms.
The effect could be beneficial as in
agricultural fields where pathogens
are reduced or negative such as
the observed reduction in
vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in
crop soils (McGraw and Hendrix
1986).
Chloropicrin has documented
effects on bacteria, fungi,
nematodes, and higher plants. To
our knowledge, there is no
published information on the
effects of chloropicrin on protozoa,
lichens, N-fixing bacteria, or moss,
but these organisms are important
in nutrient cycling in forests and
should be investigated. Castro et
al. (1983) found that four species
of Pseudomonas were capable of
degrading chloropicrin by
successive dehalogenation to
nitromethane. Other reports
indicate, however, that chloropicrin
is toxic to soil bacteria (Martin
and Kemp 1986; Ono 1985).
The maximum distance
chioropicrin diffuses in a root
system or the rate at which it
leaves the root system is not
known. Two growing seasons after
treatment the odor of chloropicrin
was commonly detected when
roots were cut 1 m or less from
the treated stump, and occasionally
detected when roots were cut as
far as 2.4 m from the stump (Thies
and Nelson 1987). Increasing
moisture levels (20% of field
82
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Thies et. a!.
capacity and above) and
decreasing temperature reduce
volatilization rates of chioropicrin
(Tanagawa et a!. 1985). Thus we
anticipate that disappearance of
chforopicrin from a treated site in
the Pacific Northwest may take
several years.
Objectives
To determine the changes in
population or diversity of specific
nontarget components of a coastal
ecosystem that occur as a direct
result of the application of
chloropicrin to stumps on an
infested site to control laminated
root rot.
This research will provide data
to evaluate the impact of applying
chloropicrin to stumps on four
essential and potentially sensitive
segments of the forest ecosystem:
vascular plant community, deirital
foodweb, soil arthropods, and the
formation of mycorrhizal roots on
Douglas-fir seedlings.
Additionally, this research will
establish the field persistence of
concentrations of chloropicrin
adequate to have an impact on
higher plants. This research will
form a basis for developing future
pest management strategies
involving the use of chloropicrin in
forestry.
R _ earch approach
Five separate evaluations are
being conducted simultaneously by
various research teams, each
collecting samples from the same
plots. Stumps on the study area
were fumigated in fall 1988 as part
of the disease control study
described above. Sampling for
bioresponses began in spring 1989
and will continue through fall
1991; analysis and publication
should be completed by the end of
1992. In general, each team will
evaluate the impact of the existing
chloropicrin treatments Ofl a class
of indicator organisms on an area
(plot) basis. In some instances, wc
will also look at the worst case
situation and examine the impact
immediately adjacent to treated
stumps. We are prepared to shift
our sampling emphasis if early
results indicate that more or less
intensive sampling is appropriate.
We are also prepared to continue
the evaluation for additional years
if analysis of the data after the
third sampling season suggests that
it would be worthwhile and if
additional funding can he obtained.
The disease control study
involved four treatments, three
chloropicrin treatments and an
untreated check, randomly
assigned to four plots within each
replicate. These treatments were
applied to eight replicate groups of
plots. Replicate blocking was
based on the inoculum found on
each plot. Due to limitations of
resources, the bioresponse
evaluations are being conducted on
five replicates of three treatments:
1. check (nothing done to the
stumps);
2. 100% labeled dosage, all
stumps treated;
3. 20% labeled dosage, all stumps
treated.
In general, the statistical
analysis will be an analysis of
variance of a randomized complete
block design with three treatments
and five replicates. We anticipate
making two orthogonal contrasts:
check vs. all treatments and 100%
labeled dosage vs. 20% labeled
dosage. Additional analyses will
be made of appropriate data to
examine shifts in populations and
species richness over time.
The following five evaluations
are being conducted:
I. field persistence of chloropicrin;
2. impacts on naturally occurring
higher plants;
3. impacts on the detrital
foodwcb;
4. impacts on
and
the soil arthropods;
5. Impacts on mycorrhiza
formation.
COOPERATION
The following organizations are
Cooperating in support of this
study: Simpson Timber Co.; Great
Lakes Chemical Co.; National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (NAPIAP),
U S Department of Agriculture;
Pacific Northwest Research
Station, U S Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service; and
the departments of Forest Science,
Botany and Plant Pathology, and
Entomology, Oregon Slate
U niversity.
SELECTED LITERATURE
Castro, C. E., R. S. Wade, and N.
0. Belser. 1983. Biohalogenation:
The metabolism of chloropicrin by
Pscudonwnas sp. .1. Agric. Food
Chem. 31:1184-1187.
Childs, T. W. 1963. Poria weirii
root rot. Phytopathology
53:1124-1127.
Childs, T. W., and K. R. Shea.
1967. Annual losses from disease
in Pacific Northwest forests.
USDA For. Serv. Res. Bull.
PNW-20. PNW For, and Range
Exp. Sin., Portland, OR.
Chromack, K., B. L. Fichier, A. R.
Moldcnkc, J. A. Entry, and E. R.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
83
-------
NONTARGET BIORESPONSE TO CHLOROPICRIN: 1. INSTALLATION OF STUDY
between soil animals and
ectomycorrhizal fungal mats. In:
C. A. Edwards (ed), Proceedings
of the workshop on interactions
between soil-inhabiting
invertebrates and microorganisms
in reLation to plant growth. Ohio
State University, Columbus.
Filip, G. M. 1976. Chemical
applications for control of
Arinillaria root rot of ponderosa
pine. Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State
Univ., Corvallis, OR, 83 p.
Hansen, E. M. 1976. Twenty year
survival of Phellinus (Poria) weirii
in Douglas-fir stumps. Can. J. For.
Res. 6:123-128.
Hansen, E. M. 1979. Survival of
Phellinus weirii in Douglas-fir
stumps after logging. Can. J. For.
Res. 9:484-488.
Himeirick, D. G. 1986. The effect
of methyl bromide and
chloropicrin soil fumigation on
strawberry (Fragaria ananassa)
yields. VA. J. Science 37:23-27.
Jones, K. and J. W. Hendrix.
1987. Inhibition of root extension
in tobacco by the mycorrhizal
fungus Glomus macrocarpum and
its prevention by benomyl. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 19:297-300.
Martin, J. K. and J. R. Kemp.
1986. The measurement of carbon
transfer within the rhizosphere of
wheat grown in field plots.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 18:103-108.
McGraw, A. C. and J. W. Hendrix.
1986. Influence of soil fumigation
and source of strawberry (Fragaria
ananassa) plants on population
densities of spores and active
propagules of endogonaceous
mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Soil
94:425-434.
McArdle, R. E., W. H. Meyer, and
D. Bruce. 1961. The yield of
Douglas-fir in the Pacific
Northwest. U.S.D.A. Agric. Tech.
Bull. No. 201.
Moldenke, A. R. and B. L. Fichter.
1988. Invertebrates of the H. J.
Andrews Experimental Forest,
western Cascade Mountains,
Oregon: IV The orbatid mites
(Acari: Cryptostigmata). USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, General
Technical Report PNW-217, 112 p.
Mughogho, L. K. 1968. The
fungus flora of fumigated soils.
Trans. Brit. Myco. Soc. 51:441-459.
Nelson, E. E., N. E. Martin, and
R. E. Williams. 1981. Laminated
root rot of western conifers.
USDA For. Serv. For. Insect and
Disease Leafi. 159, 6p.
Ono, K. 1985. The application of
soil sterilants for controlling
tobacco wildfire and angular leaf
spot caused by Pseudoinonas
syringae pathovar tabaci. Bull.
Okayama Tob. Exp. Stn. pp.
93-100.
Peterson, G. W. and R. S. Smith,
Jr. 1975. Forest nursery diseases
in the United States. USDA Ag.
Handbook No. 470, 125 p.
Rhoades, H. L. 1983. Efficacy of
soil fumigants and nonfumigants
for controlling plant nematodes
and increasing yield of snap beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Nematropica
13:239-244.
Sakuwa, T., H. Miyagawa, and H.
Koganezawa. 1984. Effect of
chloropicrin applied mechanically
for control of Helicobasidium
mointa, causal fungus of apple
violet root rot and its evaluation by
using a susceptible plant,
Medicago sativa. Bull. Fruit Tree
Res. Stn. Ser. C.(MORIOKA) vol
0(11):39-48.
Sumner, D. R., Dowler, C. C.,
Johnson, A. W., Chalfant, R. B.,
Glaze, N. C., Phatak, S. C. and
Epperson, J. E. 1985. Effect of
root diseases and nematodes on
yield of corn (Zea mays) in an
irrigated multiple-cropping system
with pest management. Plant Dis.
69:382-387.
Tanagawa, S., T. Irimajiri, and M.
Oyamada. 1985. Persistence of
chloropicrin in soil and
environmental effect on it. J.
Pestic. Science 10:205-210.
Thies, W. G. 1984. Laminated
root rot: The quest for control.
J. For. 82:345-356.
Thies, W. G., and J. M. Hoopes.
1979. Computer mapping of
laminated root rot epicenters. In:
Forest insect and disease survey
methods. U.S. Forest Service,
Methods Applications Group,
Davis, CA. Sect. 3.2.1, pp. 1-7 and
appendices.
Thies, W. G., and E. E. Nelson.
1982. Control of Phellinus weirii in
Douglas-fir stumps by the
fumigants chloropicrin, allyl
alcohol, Vapam, or Vorlex. Can. J.
For. Res. 12:528-532.
Thies, W. G. and E. E. Nelson.
1987. Reduction of Phellinus veirii
inoculum in Douglas-fir stumps by
the fumigants chioropicrin, Vorlex,
or methylisothiocyanate. Forest
Science 33:316-329.
Trappe, J. M., R. Molina, and M.
A. Castellano, 1984. Reactions of
mycorrhizal fungi and mycorrhiza
formation to pesticides. Ann. Rev.
Phytopatho. 22:331-59.
Wallis, G. W., and G. Reynolds.
1965. The initiation and spread of
Poria weirii root rot of Douglas-fir.
Can. J. Bot. 43:1-9.
84
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Bioresponse of Nontarget Organisms
Resulting from the Use of Chioropicrin
To Control Laminated Root Rot in a Northwest Conifer Forest:
Part 2. Evaluation of Bioresponses
by
Elaine R. Ingham 1 , Walter G. ThieS 2 , Daniel L. Luoma 2 , Andrew R. Moldenkd 1 and Michael A. CastelIanc
Author affiliation: 1 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, 2 Pacific Northwest
Research Station, USDA Forest Service; Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, OR.
Known impacts of chioropicrin
Most research has
concentrated on the effects of
combinations of methyl bromide
and chioropicrin fumigants on
disease-causing organisms. Little
research has been reported on the
response of saprophytic fungi to
chioropicrin. Some evidence exists
for the escape of some species of
fungi during fumigation efforts
thus positioning the survivors for
rapid recolonization of the
available substrate. The
occurrence of Trichoderma spp. in
roots of fumigated Douglas-fir
stumps was noted during the
evaluation of several fumigants for
the control of laminated root rot
(Thies and Nelson 1982).
Following fumigation, increased
numbers of Trichoderma spp. were
found in some soils (Mughogho
1968). Combinations of methyl
bromide and chioropicrin control a
variety of soil-borne diseases in
forest tree nurseries (Peterson and
Smith 1975) and can reduce
populations of various other fungi.
These include VA mycorrhizal
fungi (Jones and Hendrix 1987,
McGraw and Hendrix 1986),
ectomycorrhizal fungi (Trappe et
al. 1984), as well as root
disease-causing species of Pythium,
Rhizoceonia Phoma (Sumner et.
al. 1985), Helicobasidum momta,
(Sakuwa et al. 1984), Veilicillium
albo-atn4m, and Scierotium
(Himeirick 1986).
Nematode populations are
reduced by chioropicrin alone and
in combination with methyl
bromide or dazomet. Research
has concentrated on the
commercially important parasites
of plant roots and no information
was found on free-living fungal or
bacterial feeding nematodes.
Fumigation reduced the nematode
root pathogens Meloidogyne spp.
and Paratrichodo,us minor
(Sumner et al. 1985) and
chloropicrin in combination with
ethylene dibromide reduced
Belonolimus longicaudatus,
Meloidogyne incognita, and
Hoplolaimus galeatus (Rhoades
1983).
As a measure of species
richness, soil arthropods in conifer
forests of the Pacific Northwest
average nearly 200 species/rn 2
(personal communications Andrew
R. Moldenke, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR). Thus
soil arthropods may be an
important and sensitive indicator
to evaluate potential ecosystem
effects of chloropicrin on
nontarget soil organisms. Soil
arthropods are sensitive indicators
for soil moisture, successional
stages, plant communities, and
mycorrhizal biomass (Cromack et
al. 1988, Moldenke and Fichter
1988). All arthropod species are
presumed to be sensitive to
chloropicrin, although differing
feeding preference, microhabitat
choices, and position in the food
web will expose the diversity of
species to different concentrations
of fumigant.
Objectives
One objective of this study was
to determine changes in diversity
of specific nontarget organism
components of a coastal ecosystem
which occur as a result of
application of chloropicrin to
stumps to control laminated root
rot. A major challenge was to
evaluate the impact of chioropicrin
on a range of organism groups. A
sample scheme capable of
distinguishing at least two levels of
spatial variability was designed.
Background variability of the
organisms resulting from
heterogeneity in soil microsites
and seasonal shifts is a common
difficulty in studies of soil
organisms. Sampling intensity had
to be great enough that treatment
effects could be assessed, without
increasing the work load beyond
that of a limited budget.
The approach described here
can be applied to any ecosystem,
and to a number of situations
where effects of pesticide
application need to be assessed.
With this approach, the effect of
pesticide on plants, soil detrital
foodweb organisms, mycorrhizal
colonization of dominant plants,
and survival of sensitive bioassay
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
85
-------
NONTARGET BIORESPONSE TO CHLOROPICRIN: 2. EVALUATION
plants can be interpreted in a
biologically meaningful manner at
a number of spatial scales. For
example, the pesticide may reduce
root rot, but destroy those
organisms responsible for nutrient
cycling, or could allow another
pathogen to become a problem,
exchanging one pathogen problem
for another. Root-feeding
nematodes might be advantaged,
resulting in seedling death.
Alternatively, greater mycorrhizal
colonization of roots might occur,
and benefit the survival of desired
plant species. Before we continue
with the use of pesticides, we
should attempt to understand
beneficial or detrimental
interactions which may be
produced. Our approach allows us
to assess these possible beneficial
or detrimental effects.
Experimental site
When the experimental site
was cut early in the fall of 1988,
see Part 1. of this study, p. 81) soil
consisted of a moss (bryophyte)
layer overlying poorly developed
litter, and fermentation layers, with
a 1-5 cm depth humus soil horizon
resulting from the rapid
decomposition rates in these
systems. When soil development
is limited, nutrient cycling is
usually tightly coupled to organism
dynamics (Read and Birch, 1988;
Perry et a!. 1989). When litter
falls to the forest floor, it is rapidly
decomposed, and the nutrients
converted to microbial biomass.
These nutrients are then released
by arthropod, nematode and
protozoan grazing of decomposers,
resulting in high soil fertility and
maximum nutrient availability to
plants during times of rapid plant
utilization (Coleman 1985).
However, with clearcutting, much
of the thin soil layer was destroyed
and mineral soil revealed.
The location of each infected
stump in the clearcut stand and
three mature trees in adjacent un-
cut stands were mapped. Circular
treatment plots 0.4 ha in size were
established in the clearcut area
and blocked into groups of four
based on similar inoculum rating
(see part 1 for explanation). Each
of the four plots in each block
received one of the following
treatments: all stumps treated with
100% chloropicrin, only infected
stumps treated with 100%
chloropicrin, all stumps treated
with 20% chloropicrin, and a
control plot with no application
chloropicrin. The 100% label
dosage was 3.3 ml of chloropicrin
per kilogram of stump and root
biomass.
Choice of bio-response parameters
Bio-response assessment was
initiated in the spring of 1989.
Five major component groups of
organisms were assessed; the
above ground plant community,
detrital foodweb organisms,
mycorrhizal colonization of
Douglas-fir roots, and the response
of chioropicrin-sensitive plants.
These assessments will continue
until the fall of 1991.
Soil foodweb organisms
respond more rapidly than plants
to environmental change and
disturbance. Responses of
bacteria and fungi often reflect
day-by-day fluctuations in
temperature, moisture, grazing,
and nutrient availability, and thus
are not useful as measures of
ecosystem response to disturbance.
However, by examining changes in
activity, in ratios of fungal to
bacterial biomass, or important
populations of microorganisms,
longer term impacts on the system
can be assessed.
Protozoa, nematodes and
microarthropods are intimately
involved in nutrient cycling
(Coleman 1985) and thus are good
indicators of ecosystem health
(Ingham et al. 1985; Ingham and
Horton, 1987). Mycorrhizal fungi
are extremely important in survival
of Douglas-fir; in field sites,
Douglas-fir is not found without
the symbiotic fungus (Trappe et al.
1984). Thus, monitoring
mycorrhizal fungi can be extremely
important in determining if
pesticides have an effect.
Tomatoes and alfalfa were
planted in the field sites. Tomato
is extremely sensitive to
chioropicrin (Rhoades 1983), and
alfalfa is symbiotic with N-fixing
rhizobium. Release of
chloropicrin in field soils could be
monitored with tomato, and
natural populations of rhizobia
could be assessed by examining the
roots of the alfalfa.
Spatial scales
Within the 0.4 ha circular plots,
responses were monitored on
several spatial scales, as well as
over time.
Aboveground higher plant
responses were assessed each
spring and fall by monitoring
percent cover of each species
present,
(1) in the entire plot,
(2) in six 2 m X 3 m plots
arranged sequentially at 1, 2 and 3
meters from four individual stumps
at the edge of the plot, and
(3) in six 1 meter square plots
located between two stumps within
2 meters of each other.
Detrital foodweb responses
(numbers and activity of bacteria,
active and total fungal biomass,
and numbers and community
structure of protozoa, nematodes,
and microarthropods) were
monitored over time. Samples
were taken mid-spring, early
86
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Ingham, et. a!.
summer, late summer, and mid-
fall each year.
To determine if soil organism
numbers, activity or community
structure changed on a whole plot
spatial scale, twelve random points
were sampled in each of five plots
per treatment on the four sample
dates each year. The same four
random sets of coordinates were
designated in each third of the plot
to maximize coverage of the area.
To determine if a localized
effect of chloropicrin treatment
occurred, soil samples were taken
at 4 distances (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0
m) along three equally spaced
radii extending from tree stumps
(five separate tree stumps per
treatment). While soil samples for
microarthropods were taken from
each point, samples for the other
organisms were bulked by
distance. Since it was chioropicrin
treatment, not soil heterogeneity,
that was being assessed, averaging
the differences resulting from soil
microsite heterogeneity was
acceptable.
On each sample day, the actual
point from which soil was removed
was repositioned from the original
marker by pre-determined
distances. A 7.5 cm diameter, 7.5
cm deep sample of soil was
removed from each point for
microarthropod estimates. An
approximately 2 cm diameter, 5
cm deep soil sample was taken
from each point, but soils from
each of the three quadrants (i.e., 4
soil samples) were bulked for
bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and
protozoa assessments.
Active bacteria, active fungi,
and total fungal biomass were
assessed by the FDA method of
Ingham and Klein (1984). Total
bacterial numbers were assessed
by FITC staining (Babiuk and
Paul, 1970). Protozoa were
determined by MPN and direct
microscopic viewing (Darbyshire,
et a!. 1974). Nematodes were
assessed by Baerman extraction
and microscopic observation
(Anderson and Coleman, 1977).
Microarthropod numbers were
assessed by high efficiency
Tullgren extraction and
observation (Merchant and
Crossley 1970).
Chioropicrin-sensitive bioassay
plants (tomatoes and alfalfa) were
planted each year in the spring at
1 and 2 meters distance from
stumps of five trees of each
treatment type and were randomly
placed in another five plots of each
treatment. Survival was assessed
on each sample date. In the
second year, a ring of alfalfa was
planted at 1 meter distance from
each stump. All alfalfa plants
were examined for N-fixing
bacteria nodules on their roots at
the end of the second year.
RESULTS
Chloropicrin application was
not the only environmental
variable to which these Sites were
responding. Two extremely
important correlated variables
were (1) removal of canopy cover
and (2) compaction of the soil by
heavy machinery. All the
experimental sites were exposed to
both, either of which may have
ecosystem effects equal to or
greater than the chloropicrin
treatments. The three types of
plant plots, the two types of
detrital foodweb organism plots,
placement of chloropicrin-
senstitive plants, and placement of
Douglas-fir seedlings to assess
mycorrhizal colonization allowed
assessment of bio-responses to
these environmental variables.
In addition to compaction and
canopy removal, we observed a
gradient of organism numbers and
community structure from north to
south and east to west in this
stand. The blocking initiated at
the beginning of the study based
on Pheiinus inoculum density in
stumps reflected changes in soil
organism community structure,
and was related to surface soil
characteristics. We use these
block effects as covariates in
statistical analyses.
Pesticide application did not
impact establishment, growth or
survival of any plant species in the
first year after application of
chioropicrin.
In the first year, chloropicrin
impacted soil bacteria, fungi,
protozoa, and nematodes only in a
few isolated points near stumps:
(1) area 8, point 2, 20%
chloropicrin treatment,
(2) plot 2, 20% treatment, 2.0
distance,
(3) plot 602, 100% treatment, 2.0
distance, and
(4) plot 736, 100% treatment, 2.0
distance.
When these single points were
averaged with all five replicates
from a treatment, variance was
significantly increased, but no
significant treatment effect was
observed.
In these isolated cases,
reductions in numbers of
organisms were considerable, from
around iO , or 10 million total
number of bacteria per gram soil
to less than 100,000 per gram soil
in impacted points. Fungi
normally measured about 600 m of
hyphae per g with between 10 and
50% of those hyphae active,
dependent on season. In impacted
areas, less than 5 m of hyphae per
g were found, with no active
hyphae present. Protozoa tended
to number around 10,000 per g
soil, but in impacted soils, were
less than 10 per g. We have not
finished assessing protozoan
community structure, but no
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
87
-------
NONTARGET BIORESPONSE TO CHLOROPICRIN: 2. EVALUATION
immediately obvious changes were
detected in the first year. In
control soils, nematodes tended to
number around 100 per 5 g soil,
but in impacted soil, less than 10
per 5 g soil were found. However,
no significant changes in nematode
community structure were
observed in the first year.
Microarthropod community
structure has been assessed for the
first year, and it is clear that
though individual species respond
both positively and negatively to a
chioropicrin-fumigated
environment, these responses were
not of great enough magnitude to
radically alter total densities or
biomass either around individual
trees, or in whole plots. However,
in tree-centered samples, guild
diversity was decreased in the 20%
treatments, and comparisons of
individual species showed that 15
of the commonest species
decreased with increasing dosage,
8 increased with dosage, 2 were
highest in 20%, and 3 were lowest
in 20% chloropicrin treatments.
The commonest species of
springtail was unaffected by
chioropicrin, whereas most
oribatid species were affected,
although increases and decreases
tended to cancel out overall
effects. Coupling these analyses
with covariate information
(removal of canopy cover,
compaction, plant diversity, etc.),
should lead to identification of a
small set of indicator taxa that can
be used for more efficient
monitoring of similar situations.
In the second year, the areas
impacted in the first year
expanded, and four to five new
points of impact were observed.
The position of newly impacted
points appear random. Complete
analysis of variance has not been
performed at this time, because
not all samples have been
completely analysed.
There was no difference
between survival of tomato plants
in year one in any treatment, but
in year two, more tomato plants
died in the 100% treatments than
in other treatments. There was no
significant difference in nodulation
of alfalfa roots in any plot in any
year.
CONCLUSIONS
In the first year after
chioropicrin application, reductions
in organism numbers in a few
isolated points and changes in
individual species of
nicroarthropods were significant
on the spatial scale of a single
stump. These impacts could be
important to a new seedling trying
to obtain nutrients from the soil in
an impacted area. On an larger
spatial scale, such as the 0.4 ha
plots, and certainly on an
ecosystem-level, the impact was
not significant, based on plant
response (no impact on plant
community structure or on
chioropicrin-sensitive bioassay
plants) or on numbers of bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, nematodes or
microarthropods.
Will the impact be detrimental
or beneficial, in the long term? In
the second year, numbers of plant-
feeding nematodes have increased
from barely detectable numbers
present in soil to comprising up to
50% of the nematode population
in some samples in the second
year. This could be detrimental to
Douglas-fir seedlings, but this is a
stand-wide effect, not an effect of
chioropicrin application. In fact,
those points impacted by the
chloropicrin have below-detection
level numbers of nematodes, and
so, chloropicrin application could
be beneficial for Douglas-fir
seedlings growing in those areas,
because the plant-feeding
nematodes have been negatively
impacted in those places.
The increase in plant-feeding
nematodes has coincided with
increase in exotic weed species on
these sites. Plant-feeding
nematodes may be attacking the
roots of these weedy species and
thus be reducing competition
between the weed species and
Douglas-fir seedlings. In areas
impacted by chloropicrin, it may
be that the weeds don’t suffer
limitation by root-destroying
nematodes and the Douglas-fir
seedlings will experience increased
competition. We will be able to
assess this interaction by continued
examination of the soil and the
plant communities over time.
All of our information supports
the conclusion that very little
chioropicrin escaped from roots in
the first year. Only at a few
points, not significant on an
ecosystem scale, were effects
detected. In the second year,
responses of soil organisms and
chioropicrin-sensitive plants
provided information that more
chioropicrin escaped from roots,
but still not enough to result in an
effect on the plant community.
Early warning that potential effects
may occur is being provided by the
soil organisms, but we don’t have
the database to tell us if this
means an overall detrimental
effect on the ecosystem, or an
overall beneficial effect on the
ecosystem.
We know that the fungus that
causes laminated root rot is being
killed in these stumps (Thies and
Nelson, 1985). Within the stump,
other organisms are being killed,
and it is likely that wood
decomposition is being slowed. Is
that positive or negative? We
don’t know. What is the balance
sheet going to indicate in ten
years? Will the detrimental effects
outweigh the positive?
Whatever happens in this
particular ecosystem, however, the
type of sampling being done,
88
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Ingham, et. a!.
.limited as it is, allows biologically
meaningful conclusions to be made
about the impact of this pesticide
in this ecosystem. This approach
of assessing bio-responses gives us
the ability to make predictions
about the possible trajectories this
ecosystem may take. We have the
means to make useful predictions,
and by looking at this suite of
organism responses, we can
indicate problem areas before a
situation may result in irreversible
loss of a particular habitat or
species.
So, is chloropicrin use
detrimental? If the points where
organism numbers have been
negatively impacted don’t spread
farther than they have in the
second year, and if the pathogens
don’t cause a problem as impacted
areas are re-colonized, the
liklihood is that the pesticide
should continue to be registered
for this use, with the clear
explanation that higher doses,
applied in a different manner,
might be detrimental. However,
impacted areas are likely to
continue to expand, because not all
the pesticide has volatilized from
the stumps. How far will the
affected areas expand? Will
pathogens colonize the center of
these impacted areas and cause
problems? Will we select for
worse disease problems by using
this pesticide? Once all the
chioropicrin is out of the stumps,
how long before affected areas will
be re-colonized by the normal
organisms? Or will these areas be
pushed into completely different
ecosystem trajectories, similar to
what has occurred in some plots in
southern Oregon with completely
different disturbances (Borchers
and Perry, 1989)? Answers to
these questions are not available.
But continued monitoring in this
system will allow these questions
to be answered for this system.
Extrapolations can be made to
other systems with the
understanding that differences
between another system and this
one must be understood in
predicting possible impacts.
COOPERATION
The following organizations are
cooperating in support of this
study: Simpson Timber Co.; Great
Lakes Chemical Co.; National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (NAPIAP),
US Department of Agriculture;
Pacific Northwest Research
Station, US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service; and
the departments of Forest Science,
Botany and Plant Pathology, and
Entomology, Oregon State
University.
SELECTED LITERATURE
Anderson, R.V. and D.C.
Coleman. 1977. The use of glass
microbeads in ecological
experiments with bacteriophagic
nematodes. J. Nematol. 9:319-322.
Babiuk L.A. and Paul L.A. 1970.
The use of fluorescein isothiocya-
nate in the determination of the
bacterial biomass of a grassland
soil. Can. J. Microbiol. 16:57-62.
Borchers, J.G. and D.A. Perry.
1989. Organic matter content and
aggregation of forest soils with
different textures in southwest
Oregon clearcuts. pp. 245-250. In:
D.A. Perry (ed.). Maintaining the
Longterm Productivity of Pacific
Northwest Forest Ecosystems.
Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
Castro, C. E., R. S. Wade, and N.
0. Belser. 1983. Biohalogenation:
The metabolism of chioropicrin by
Pseudomonas sp. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 31:1184-1187.
Coleman, D.C. 1985. Through a
ped darkly: an ecological
assessment of root-soil-microbial-
faunal interactions. pp. 1-21. In:
Fitter, A.H. (ed.) Ecological
Interactions in Soil: Plants,
Microbes and Animals. Brit. Ecol.
Soc. Special Publication #4,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Perry, D.A., M.P. Amaranthus, J.
G. Borchers, S.L. Borchers and R.
E. Brainerd. 1989. Bootstrapping
in ecosystems: Internal interactions
largely determine productivity and
stability in biological systems with
strong positive feedback.
Bioscience 39:230-237
Read, DJ. and C.P.D. Birch.
1988. The effects and implications
of disturbance of mycorrhizal
mycelial systems. Proc. Royal Soc.
(Edinburgh) 94B: 13-24.
Coleman D.C., Oades J.M. and
Uchara G. 1989. Dynamics of Soil
Organic Matter in Tropical
Ecosystems. NifTAL, University
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Cromack, K., B. L. Fichter, A. R.
Moldenke, J. A. Entry, and E. R.
Ingham. 1988. Interactions
between soil animals and
ectomycorrhizal fungal mats. In:
C. A. Edwards (ed), Proceedings
of the workshop on interactions
between soil-inhabiting
invertebrates and microorganisms
in relation to plant growth. Ohio
State University, Columbus.
Darbyshire, J.F., R.E. Wheatley,
M.P. Greaves, and Ri-I.E. Inkson.
1974. A rapid micromethod for
estimating bacterial and protozoan
populations in soil. Ecology
61:764-771.
Himeirick, D. G. 1986. The effect
of methyl bromide and
chioropicrin soil fumigation on
strawberry (Fragaria ananassa)
yields. VA. J. Science 37:23-27.
Ingham E.R. and Horton K.A.
1987. Bacterial, fungal and proto-
zoan responses to chloroform
fumigation in stored prairie soil.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
89
-------
NONTARGET BIORESPONSE TO CHLOROPICRIN: 2. EVALUATION
Soil Biology & Biochemistry
19:545-550.
Ingham E.R. and Klein D.A.
1984. Soil fungi: Relationships
between hyphal activity and
staining with fluorescein diacetate.
Soil Biology & Biochemistry
16:273-278.
Ingham E.R., Trofymow JA,
Ames R.N., Hunt H.W., Morley
C.R., Moore J.C., and Coleman
D.C. 1985. Tophic interactions
and nitrogen cycling in a semi-arid
grassland soil. II. System responses
to removal of different groups of
soil microbes or fauna: Journal of
Applied Ecology 23:615-630.
Jones, K. and J. W. Hendrix.
1987. Inhibition of root extension
in tobacco by the mycorrhizal
fungus Glomus ,nacrocarpum and
its prevention by benomyl. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 19:297-300.
Martin, J. K. and J. R. Kemp.
1986. The measurement of carbon
transfer within the rhizosphere of
wheat grown in field plots. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 18:103-108.
McGraw, A. C. and J. W. Hendrix.
1986. Influence of soil fumigation
and source of strawberry (Fragaria
ananassa) plants on population
densities of spores and active
propagules of endogonaceous
mycorrhizal fungi. Plant Soil
94:425-434.
Merchant, VA. and DA. Crossley,
Jr. 1970. An inexpensive high-
efficiency Tuigren extractor for soil
microarthropods. J. Georgia
Entomol. Soc. 5:83-87.
Moldenke, A. R. and B. L. Fichter.
1988. Invertebrates of the H. J.
Andrews Experimental Forest,
western Cascade Mountains,
Oregon: IV The orbatid mites
(Acari: Cryptostiginata). USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, General
Technical Report PNW-217, 112 p.
Mughogho, L. K. 1968. The
fungus flora of fumigated soils.
Trans. Brit. Myco. Soc. 51:441-459.
Ono, K. 1985. The application of
soil sterilants for controlling
tobacco wildfire and angular leaf
spot caused by Pseudomonas
syringae pathovar tabaci, Bull.
Okayama Tob. Exp. SEn. pp.
93-100.
Peterson, G. W. and R. S. Smith,
Jr. 1975. Forest nursery diseases
in the United States. USDA Ag.
Handbook No. 470, 125 p.
Rhoades, H. L. 1983. Efficacy of
soil fumigants and nonfumigants
for controlling plant nematodes
and increasing yield of snap beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Nematropica
13:239-244.
Sakuwa, T., H. Miyagawa, and H.
Koganezawa. 1984. Effect of
chioropicrin applied mechanically
for control of Helicobasidium
rnomta, causal fungus of apple
violet root rot and its evaluation by
using a susceptable plant,
Medicago sativa. Bull. Fruit Tree
Res. Stn. Ser. C.(MORIOKA) vol
0(11):39-48.
Sumner, D. R., Dowler, C. C.,
Johnson, A. W., Chalfant, R. B.,
Glaze, N. C., Phatak, S. C. and
Epperson, J. E. 1985. Effect of
root diseases and nematodes on
yield of corn (Zea inays) in an
irrigated multiple-cropping system
with pest management. Plant Dis.
69:382-387.
Tanagawa, S., T. Irimajiri, and M.
Oyamada. 1985. Persistence of
chloropicrin in soil and
environmental effect on it. J.
Pestic. Science 10:205-210.
Thies, W. G., and E. E. Nelson.
1982. Control of Phellinus weirii in
Douglas-fir stumps by the
fumigants chloropicrin, allyl
alcohol, Vapam, or Vorlex. Can. J.
For. Res. 12:528-532.
Thies, W. G. and E. E. Nelson.
1987. Reduction of Phellinus weirll
inoculum in Douglas-fir stumps by
the fumigants chloropicrin, Vorlex,
or methylisothiocyanate. Forest
Science 33:316-329.
Trappe, J. M., R. Molina, and M.
A. Castellano. 1984. Reactions of
mycorrhizal fungi and mycorrhiza
formation to pesticides. Ann. Rev.
Phytopatho. 22:331-59.
90
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Birds and Pesticides
Anne Fairbrother, DVM, PHD
Team Leader, Wildlife Toxicology Research Team 1
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory/ORD
Corvallis, Oregon
ABSTRACT
Die-offs or population declines of terrestrial birds caused by pesticide use are highly visible and frequently
generate intense public concern. Unfortunately, birds generally are more sensitive to organochiorine,
oiganophosphorus, or carbam ale insecticides than are mammals. Organochiorine compounds cause
reproductive impairment at relatively low concentrations by interfering with the proper flinctioning of the shell-
glan4 thereby causing eggs to be formed with extremely thin shells. Organophosp/ioms and carbamate
insecticides are more toxic to birds than mammals due to deficiencies in liver enzyme systems. Therefore, the
USEPA requires data on bird exposures and sensitivities as part of the registration process for agricultural
chemicals and uses reports of bird kills following pesticide applications as evidence of unacceptable risk to
justify alterations in approved use scenarios.
The Wildlife Ecology Tea,n at the USEPA C’on’allis Environmental Research Laboratory has been
evalitating the methods used for terrestrial ecological risk assessment, including refinements of 1aboralo y
techniques for measuring directs toxicity and reproductive effects, studies of how avoidance and aversion
behaviors affect the outcome of toxicity tests, relative contribution of the various possible exposure routes, and
extrapolation of laborato’y results to the field. Another objective of the Tea,n is the develop nent of
biomarkers of exposure and hazard for terrestrial wildlife species. Through the use of appropriate cellular or
biochemical measures, detrimental impacts of pollutants on free-ranging wildlife can be detected before large-
scale die-offs or irreversible population declines occur. Biomarkers have been developed for several species
of waterfowl, gallinaceous birds, and shorebirds for measuring tissue and serum enzyme changes (esp.
cholinesterase), imnmne dysfunction, morphometric aberrations, and eggshell quality. Ecoioxicolog-y and
population studies have included observations of pesticide effects on nesting behaviors of songbirds, waterfowl
and upland game birds. Modelling of population consequences of pesticide exposure to representative
passerine species is underway. Selected examples of studies conducted in each of these research areas will be
presented to illustrate the state of knowledge in pesticide risk assessment for birds, some promising new
biomonitoring ,nethods, and where critical data gaps still exist.
1 A list of publications by the Wildlife Toxicology Research Team is available from Anne Fairbrother at
the Environmental Research Laboratory, 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR 97333
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED? 91
-------
Effects of Pesticides on Upland Game:
a Review of Herbicides and Organophosphate
and Carbamate Insecticides
John W. Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
1345 Barton Road., Pocatello, ID 83204.
Lawrence J. Blus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
480 SW Airport Road., Corvallis, OR 97333.
ABSTRACT
The adverse impacts of environmental contaminants on natural resources have long been recognized and
various pesticides have been implicated in wildlife die-offs and population declines. However, little is known
regarding the effects of agri-chemicals on upland game. Research in Great Britain has addressed the long-
term effects of pesticides on the gray partridge (Perdix perdix), providing evidence that pesticide (both
herbicides and insecticides) use has resulted in partridge declines. Little direct partridge mortality resulted
from pesticide use. Jnstea4 pesticides increased chick deaths by reducing their food supply (i.e. insects and
forbs).
In southern Idaho, as well as in many other areas of the west, farmers use pesticides on a wide variety of
crops, and these pesticides are vastly different in their toxicities to wildlife. In Idaho, four pesticides have
been implicated in wildlife die-offs. Farmers reported sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) dying in their
fields in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s in southeastern Idaho. In agricultural areas, sage grouse feed on
insects and forbs, and they may be exposed to pesticides several times during the summer. Sage grouse
(N= 73) were equipped wit/i radio transmitters as they arrived on summer range in 1985 and 1986. About 90
percent of these grouse used farmlands, 20 percent were actually exposed to pesticides and about 15 percent
died as a result of the exposure. Moreover, all of the detected deaths involved juveniles that died in alfalfa or
potato fields. Thirty birds found sick in alfalfa fields sprayed with diniethoate were also equipped with radio
transmitters. Twenty of these birds eventually died including five adults.
Substantial evidence su , ests that partridge populations are declining from pesticide use. Moreover, sage
grouse, which spend only a small part of their life in agricultural areas, are dying as a result of pesticide
exposure. Given this information, it seems reasonable to suspect that the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), a
species strongly tied to farmlancl is also being affected by pesticide use. Unfortunately, data are not currently
available to support or reject this notion.
INTRODUCTION
The adverse impacts of
environmental contaminants on
natural resources have long been
recognized and various pesticides
have been implicated in wildlife
die-offs and population declines
(Henny et al. 1977, Hudson et al.
1984, Potts 1986, Smith 1987).
Much of this research has focused
on the effects of organophosphate
and carbamate insecticides on
wildlife, especially waterfowl and
to a lesser extent, gallinaceous
species.
A number of reports are available
that detail wildlife losses following
the application of various
pesticides (Zinkl et a!. 1978, 1981,
Hill and Mendenhall 1980, White
et al. 1982, Seabloom et al. 1973,
Henny et al. 1985, and others).
Moreover, the effects of herbicide
treatment of sagebrush on sage
grouse have also been well
documented (Wallestad 1975a,
1975b, Braun et a!. 1977).
Unfortunately, there have been
few field experiments addressing
the effects of agri-chemicals,
especially organophosphate and
carbamate compounds, on upland
game (Potts 1986, Blus et al. 1989,
Rands 1985). The purpose of this
paper is to review current
knowledge of the effects of
herbicides and organophosphate
and carbamate insecticides on
upland game based on field
studies, identif ’ potential problems
and suggest topics for future
research.
92
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Connelly & Bins
Pesticides - Types and Toxicitles
More than 160 million acre-
treatments of organophosphorus
and carbamate pesticides are
estimated to be applied to
farml nd and forests each year
(Smith 1987). Throughout the
United States, Smith (1987)
reports that 108 different
organophosphorous and carbamate
pesticides are used. Many of these
agri-chemicals are used in Idaho
(Table 1) and are commonly
applied to crops used by
pheasants, gray partridge, sage
grouse and other upland species.
Of the 16 insecticides most
frequently applied to Idaho
farmland, 10 (63%) have LI) 50 ‘s
(acute oral dose), <= 20 mg/kg
(Table 1). Moreover, 4 (25%) of
these compounds have been
implicated in wildlife die-offs (Blus
in press, Blus et al. 1989)..
Although the toxicities of most of
& Data from Hudson et al. (1984)
b 95% confidence Intervals In parenthesis.
these compounds to pheasants and
other upland species have been
established under controlled
laboratory conditions, few attempts
have been made to relate these
data to field situations (Smith
1987). For instance, dimethoate is
one of the most commonly used
insecticides in the western United
States and has been available for a
number of years. The LI) 50 for
dimethoate is 20 mg/kg (Hudson
et al. 1984) for pheasants,
suggesting that it is relatively toxic
to upland game. At least 9 other
pesticides used in Idaho have
lower LI) 50 ‘s (i.e. are more toxic)
than dimethoate. However, it is
the only compound (except
methamidophos) that has been
implicated in > 1 die-off of upland
species in Idaho and this was not
reported until 1989 (Blus et al.
1989). The LD 50 ‘s for the other,
more toxic, compounds suggest
that they too may pose a problem
for free-ranging wildlife. Whether
or not these problems occur is
unknown and the relationship of
laboratory generated LI) 50 ‘s to
field situations remains unclear.
Wildlife Mortality
Mortality of upland game exposed
to pesticides may occur either
directly or indirectly as a result of
this exposure. Direct mortality
occurs when the bird becomes
functionally intoxicated and
cholinesterase depression is too
high for the animal to recover.
Indirect mortality may occur when
a pesticide predisposes birds to
higher rates of predation or other
forms of mortality, it may also
occur when pesticide applications
reduce a bird’s food supply to the
point where starvation occurs.
Both types of mortality have been
well documented for several
species of upland game.
Indirect Effects
Potts (1986) provided evidence
that both herbicides and
insecticides caused relatively high
indirect mortality in gray partridge.
In one of the few long-term
studies addressing the impacts of
agri-chemicals on upland game,
Potts (1986) demonstrated that the
use of pesticides reduced the food
supply for partridge chicks,
ultimately resulting in high
starvation rates. This research
showed that herbicides reduced
the amount of broad-leafed forbs
used for food by partridge. The
reduction of forbs eliminated
habitat for insócts, resulting in
fewer insects and a simpler
plant/animal community.
Additional use of insecticides
further decreased the number of
insects. The end result was a
greatly reduced food supply for
partridge (Potts 1986, Rands
1985).
Table 1. Organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides used in southern
Idaho and their acute toxicitles to pheasantS’.
Pesticide
Use Acute
Oral
LD [ mg/kgJ
A ld lcarb
Potatoes
5.3
( 3 . 0 - 7 4 )b
Carbofuran
Alfalfa
4.2
(2.4-7.2)
Chiorpyrifos
Alfalfa
8.4
(2.8-25.5)
Diazinon
Field crops
4.3
(3.0-6.2)
Dimethoate
Alfalfa, Wheat
20.0
(15.9-25.2)
Dlsulfoton
Malathion
Alfalfa, Potatoes,
Wheat
Field crops
11.9
167.0
(8.6-16.5)
(120-231)
Methamklophos
Potatoes
Unknown
Methldathion
Methylparathion
Alfalfa
Alfalfa, Peas
33.2
8.2
(17.3-63.5)
(5.7-11.9)
Mevinphos
Potatoes
1.4
(0.95-2.0)
Naled
Alfalfa
120.0
(30.0-480)
Oxydemeton Methyl
Potatoes
42.4
(30.6-58.8)
Parathion
Potatoes, Grain
12.4
(10.1-15.2)
Phorate
Alfalfa, Potatoes&2
Sugarbeets
7.1
(4.9-10.3)
Trlchlorfon
Alfalfa,
Sugarbeets
95.9
(76.1-121)
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED?
93
-------
EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES ON UPLAND GAME
Hill and Robertson (1988) suggest
that pesticides have the same
adverse effects on pheasant
populations as they do on
partridge populations. However,
Hill and Robertson’s data on
pesticides and pheasants are much
more limited than Pott’s (1986)
data on pesticides and partridge.
Messick et al. (1974) also studied
the effects of pesticides on
pheasants in Idaho. These
investigations reported lowered
insect populations in the treated
area and that juvenile pheasants
consumed fewer insects in the
treated area compared to an
untreated area. Unfortunately, the
relationship between food
availability and juvenile survival
was not discussed (Messick et a!.
1974).
Pesticides may indirectly affect
upland game populations by
reducing food supplies. A second
form of indirect effect may occur
when sublethal exposures (i.e.
intoxication) alter normal
behaviors and/or decrease
awareness, thereby increasing the
risk of predation (Galindo et al.
1985) or other types of mortality
(e.g. exposure, farm machinery).
Direct Effects
Messick et al. (1974) and Potts
(1986) reported that direct
mortality of game birds as a result
of pesticide exposure was relatively
rare and of little concern. This
conclusion is not shared by other
researchers and Blus et aL (1989)
demonstrated that 2 commonly
used insecticides frequently cause
direct mortality to sage grouse in
southeastern Idaho.
Most sage grouse in southeastern
Idaho are migratory and will move
long distances between
winter/breeding and summer
range (Connelly Ct al. 1988).
Although this species generally
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
G
A
0
U
S
E
0
B
S
E
A
V
E
0
100 —
80
40
20
0
Farmland Sagebrush Other
HABITAT
FIgure 1. Habitat use by sage grouse during summers In southeastern
Idaho.
behaves differently than other
upland species in terms of their
fall-to-spring feeding habits and
movements, sage grouse are
similar to other game birds in
their use of summer range. Like
other species of upland game, sage
grouse feed on forbs and insects
H
A
R
V
E
$
I
I 1
I
H
0
U
S
A
N
D
S
2000
1500
1000
500
0
during the summer and will move
from relatively dry sagebrush
uplands to agricultural areas to
obtain these resources (Connelly
et al. 1988, Gates 1983) (Fig. 1).
While in agricultural areas, sage
grouse may be exposed to
pesticides (Blus et al. 1989).
I I I I I U I I I
1957 1967
1977 1987
YEAR
Figure 2. Pheasant population trends as reflected by harvest in three
states, 1957-88.
IOWA
SKA
94
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Connelly & Blus
Blus et al. (1989) equipped sage
grouse with radio-transmitters (N-
43) as they arrived on summer
range in 1985 and 1986. About 90
percent of these grouse used
farmlands, 20 percent were
exposed to pesticides and 15
percent died, as a result of the
exposure (Table 2). All of the
detected deaths involved juveniles
that died in alfalfa or potato fields.
Thirty birds found sick in alfalfa
fields sprayed with dimethoate
were also equipped with radio
transmitters. Twenty (67%) of
these birds eventually died,
including 5 adults. A die-off in
one alfalfa field in 1986 involved
70 grouse.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RESEARCH NEEDS
Substantial evidence exists to
suggest that partridge populations
are declining from pesticide use.
Moreover, sage grouse, which
spend only a small part of their
life in agricultural areas, are dying
as a result of pesticide exposure.
Given this information, it seems
reasonable to suspect that the
farmland, is also being affected
pheasant, a species strongly tied to
by pesticide use. Pheasants are
similar to partridge (Potts 1986) in
that they have declined over a
large portion of their range (Fig.
2). This decline is usually
attributed to “farming practices” or
changing habitats. Pesticides are a
farming practice that can have a
considerable effect on upland
game habitat (Potts 1986).
Unfortunately, pesticide use has
seldom been identified as a factor
of sufficient importance to
pheasant populations to warrant
intensive investigation (Messick et
al. 1974). As an example, a
symposium on pheasants and
agricultural lands was recently
published (Hallet Ct al. 1988).
This symposium, contained 17
papers addressing a wide variety of
topics, but none were concerned
with the effects of pesticides on
pheasants.
The information available on
pesticides and upland game,
together with data on pheasant
population trends and farming
practices, suggest that the
relationship between pesticides
and pheasants should be
thoroughly investigated. If
pesticide use is a concern, insect
populations in brood rearing
habitats can be evaluated. Long
term pheasant trends in these
areas should also be quantified
and survival of juveniles to the fall
should be examined. Potts (1986)
suggested a technique for
mitigating pesticide related
mortality but this technique has
not been experimentally evaluated
in North America.
There also appears to be some
argument over the relative
importance of pesticide-caused
direct mortality. A longer term
study of the influence of this
mortality on sage grouse
populations would allow us to
better understand this
phenomenon as well as model the
impact of pesticides on wildlife in
agricultural systems.
LITERATURE CITED
Blus, L. J., C. S. Staley, C. J.
Henny, G. W. Pendleton, T. H.
Craig, E. H. Crai& and D. K.
Halford. 1989. Effects of
organophosphorous insecticides on
sage grouse in southeastern Idaho.
J. WildI. Manage. 53: 1139-1146.
______ R. K. Stroud, G. M.
Sutton, K. A. Smith, T. J. Shelton,
G. A. Van Der Koppel, N. D.
Pederson, and W. E. Olson. In
press. Canada goose die-off
related to simultaneous application
of three anticholinesterase
insecticides. Northwest Nat.
Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. 0.
Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
maintenance of sage grouse
habitats. Wildi. Soc. Bull. 5: 99-
106.
Connelly, J. W., H. W. Browers,
and R. J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal
movements of sage grouse in
Table 2. Mortality of sage grouse related to organophosphate pesticide
use in southeastern Idaho, 1986’.
CONDlTlON’
Fi
Mortality (%)
Mortality (%)
Adult
15
0
5
100
Juvenile
28
25
25
56
Total
43
16
30
63
a Modified from Blus et al. (1989).
b Condition when captured; birds were classified as either healthy
(no apparent exposure to pesticides) or intoxicated.
C Number of birds captured.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
95
-------
EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES ON UPLAND GAME
southeastern Idaho. J. Wildi.
Manage. 52: 116-122.
Galindo, J. C,, R. J. Kendall, C. J.
Driver and T. E. Lacher, Jr. 1985.
The effects of methyl parathion on
susceptibility of bobwhite quail
( Colinus virginianus ) to domestic
cat predation. Behav. Neur, Biol.
43: 21-36.
Gates, R. J. 1983. Sage grouse,
lagomorph and prongborn use of a
sagebrush grassland burn site on
the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. M. S. Thesis.
Montana State Univ., Bozeman.
135 pp.
Hallett, D. L., W. R. Edwards, and
G. V. Burger (eds). 1988.
Pheasants: Symptoms of wildlife
problems on agricultural lands.
North Central Section of the
Wildl. Soc., Bloomington, IN.
345 pp.
Henny, C. J., M. A. Byrd, J. A.
Jacobs, P. D. McLain, M. R.
Todd, and B. F. Halla. 1977.
Mid-Atlantic coast osprey
population: present numbers,
productivity, pollutant
contamination, and status. J.
Wildl. Manage. 41: 254-265.
of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife.
USFWS Res. Pubi. 153.
Washington, D. C. 9Opp
Messick, J. P., E. G. Bizeau, W.
W. Benson, and W. H. Mullins.
1974. Aerial pesticide applications
and ring-necked pheasants. J.
Wildl. Manage. 38: 679-685.
Potts, G. R. 1986. The partridge:
pesticides, predation and
conservation. Collins Professional
and Technical Books, London.
2 ’74pp.
Rands, N. R. W. 1985. Pesticide
use on cereals and the survival of
gray partridge chicks: A field
experiment. J. Appi. Ecol. 22: 49-
54.
Seabloom, R. W., G. L. Pearson,
L. W. Oring, and J. R. Reilly.
1973. An incident of fenthion
mosquito control and subsequent
avian mortality. J. Wildl. Dis. 9:
18-20.
Smith, G. J. 1987. Pesticide use
and toxicology in relation to
wildlife: organophosporus and
carbamate compounds. USFWS
Res. PubI. 170. Washington, D.
C. l7lpp.
poisoning in wild Canada geese. J.
Wildl. Manage. 42: 406-408.
_____ R. B. Roberts, P. J. Shea,
and J. Lasmanis. 1981. Toxicity of
acephate and methamidophos to
dark-eyed juncos. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 10: 185-192.
_____ L. J. Blus, E. J. Kolbe, and
R. E. Fitzner. 1985.
Organophosphate insecticide
(famphur) topically applied to
cattle kills magpies and hawks. J.
Wildi. Manage. 49: 648-658.
Hill, E. F. and V. M. Mendenhall.
1980. Secondary poisoning of barn
owls with famphur, an
organophosphate insecticide. J.
Wildl. Manage. 44: 676-681.
Hill, D. and P. Robertson. 1988.
The pheasant: ecology,
management and conservation.
BSP Professional Books, London.
281 pp.
Hudson, R. H., R. K. Tucker and
M. A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook
Wallestad, R. 0. 1975a. Life
history and habitat requirements of
sage grouse in central Montana.
Montana Dept of Fish and Game,
Helena. 65pp.
Wallestad, R. 0. 1975b. Male
sage grouse responses to
sagebrush treatment. J. Wildl.
Manage. 39: 482-484.
White, D. H., C. A. Mitchell, L. D.
Wynn, E. L. Flickinger, and E. J.
Kolbe. 1982. Organophosphate
insecticide poisoning of Canada
geese in the Texas panhandle. J.
Field Ornith. 53: 22-27.
Zinki, J. G., J. Rathert and R. H.
Hudson, 1978. Diazinon
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
Connelly & Blus
Questions for Jack Connelly
Q. To your knowledge has anyone been looking at
some of the predators that some of those birds
might have been ingested by?
A. There is some anecdotal information that OP’s
can have secondary effects, e. g. magpie dies of
OP poisoning, dog eats magpie and dies too. But
they have not been documented in experiments.
In terms of decreases in predator populations that
accompany decreases in upland game bird
populations, I’d say no, it might be the other way
around.
0. I noticed that Pheasants Forever has claimed that
a lot of habitat has been lost, and they attribute
loss of pheasant populations to habitat loss as part
of agricultural practices. [ editor’s note: not sure
whether Pheasants Forever makes the claims, or
merely reports what other said]
A. Well, habitat loss and agricultural practices go
hand in glove. Habitat destruction, such as
draining and plowing up a cattail slough, that’s
very visual, but you can’t see a pesticide, though
you may see the airplane briefly. So Pheasants
Forever are very concerned about this other
aspect.
(end of tape)
Q. Is there any evidence that birds are eating insects
that have been hit with pesticides and re carrying
a load, or whether insects that have been hit with
pesticide and are staggering around with it on
them are being picked up by the chicks?
A. As to staggering insects, yes, I think they do
become prey to chicks, but as to insects being
accumulators, I don’t know.
0. To follow up on that, when studying red-tailed
hawks, we’ve seen hawks brought in with small
passerines in their crops. Now redtails hawks are
not passerine predators, so they are scavenging in
this case.
A. Right. Larry is starting some pheasant research in
northern California.
A. Larry Blus: Yes, two things on the sage grouse
study.
1. [ unintelligible]
2. This is the only study in which dimethoate has
been shown to have an effect on vertebrates. It is not
projected to be a problem in the environment.
The pheasants of Tule Lake: in potatoes sprayed
primarily with methamidophos, birds collected up to
10 days after spraying had 32% inhibition, and birds
collected 2 to 5 days after spraying had up to 50%
inhibition of cholinesterase.
Connelly I think the important point is the common
thread - sage grouse in Idaho, pheasants in California,
Monitor on potato fields, I think there is some hard
evidence that’s worth looking at by the scientific
community.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
97
-------
Session 4. Frameworks for Longlerm Monitoring
River Basin Studies: National Water Quality Assessment Program
Stuart McKenzie
U.S. Geological Survey
EMAP: Relationship to Pesticide Studies
Daniel McKenzie
EMAP Associate Director, Inland Aquatic Systems
Office of Research and Development Laboratory, EPA, Corvallis
98 PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
River Basin Studies: National Water Quality Assessment Program
Stuart McKenzie
U.S. Geological Survey
10605 Cherry Blossom Lane
Portland, Oregon
The NA WQA (National Water-Quality Assessment Program) is designed to describe the status and
trends in the quality of the Nation’s ground- and surface-water resources and to provide a sound
understanding of the natural and human factors that affect the quality of these resources. To meet
NA WQA goals, the progratn will integrate information about water quality at different spatial scales-- local,
study unit, and regional and national.
As part of the program, study-unit investigations will be conducted in 60 areas throughout the nation to
provide a framework for national and regional water-quality assessments. By 1993, 20 study units will be in
an intensive data-collection and analysis phase each year, and the first cycle of intensive investigations
covering the 60 study units will be completed in 2002.
National and regional assessments of ground- and surface-water quality will be provided from issue-
oriented findings of nationally consistent information from the study units. By including study units that
cover both a large part of the United States and diverse hydrologic systems that differ in their response to
natural and human factors, the NA WQA Program ensures that many critical water-resource and water-
quality concerns or issues can be addressed by comparative studies that are national and regional in scale.
Questions for Stuart McKenzie give them a lot of ideas about how do things, how
to sample.
0. Do you have stable funding during this time
period?
A. As much as any Federal agency has stable funding
during this period of time. OPM had a meeting
with us, and they said that unless we could turn
out products - - and they wanted us to be able to
move vertically and horizontally! They meant
horizontally we had to interact with all other
activities in the environment, that is with all other
federal and local agencies, involved in this kind of
work, and vertically, we had to be able to be
aware of the whole range of contaminants in the
environment.
Another thing, too - there has been some
question about the difference between ourselves and
EMAP. They are different approaches, and my sense
is, we will be further ahead with the complement of
the two, and so I’m in favor of EMAP.
0. To what extent will data produced by this program
feed into the other, I mean, is there a cost saving
on both sides?
A. I’ll let Dan answer that from the EMAP side. I
think, definitely. I see EMAP as a national data
set. It will produce maps which, for the general
public will be very user friendly. For scientists it
will help us understand something about
geographic variability that we won’t be able to
pick up. We will be in 45% of the continental
U.S., so we are going to miss some of it. I see a
lot of real benefit to us. I think we will be able to
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED? 99
-------
EMAP: Relationship to Pesticide Studies
Daniel McKenzie
EMAP Associate Director, Inland Aquatic Systems
Office of Research and Development Laboratory, EPA, Corvallis
ABSTRAC’F
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment P -ogram (EMAF) is a new program being developed by
EPA’s Office of Research and Development to monitor indicators of change in the condition of our nation’s
ecological resources. Specifically, EMAP is intended to 1) provide quantitative estimates of the status, extent,
changes and trends in ecological resources on a regional basis over periods of years to decades, 2) monitor
indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat condition and seek to identify possible causes of adverse
conditions, and 3) provide annual statistical summaries and periodic interpretive reports on status and
trends. Seven ecological resource groups foinz the basic stiucture of EMAP: agroecosysteins, arid lands,
forests, Great Lakes, near costa! systems, inland surface waters and wetlands. This presentation will provide
a brief description of the program and then discuss some of the fi4ture EMAF activities and information
anticipated for Region 10. An example illustration will be discussed to show how the EMAP framework
could be applied to State or local-level monitoring programs. Monitoring objectives and linkages to relative
risk-reduction frameworks will also be briefly addressed.
Questions for Dan McKenzie:
0. At least in the Western part of the United States,
a lot of the land is controlled by the Federal
government. How are you (unintelligible)
A. We don’t have enough funds to have a hope of
doing this alone at the level it needs to be done.
We are trying to involve other federal agencies as
much as possible. Probably we are farthest ahead
with NOAA. We have a memorandum of
understanding with them to combine the National
Status and Trends program that they have
underway with EMAP. With Forest Service, we
are not quite as far along, but looking at the
Forest Health Monitoring Program that the
Forest Service is putting together, and again, we
are planning to run that as a joint office running
one program, them with their objectives, EMAP
with theirs, but integrated, one program. We’ve
had some initial talks with BLM, Fish and
Wildlife, etc., on a case by case basis but with
each agency, it’s an effort to get to a coordinated
program.
Q. [ Question on fishing lakes.] Here in the northwest,
some of the lakes are managed as “put and take”
fisheries. So the question of health may only be
whether or not it will sustain a 9 inch trout long
enough for someone to catch it!
A. Well, one of the things we need to look at is, how
to take a measurement on a lake, take an
indicator of it’s condition, and judge whether
that’s good or bad, nominal or sub-nominal. The
designated use concept comes into plan. Most of
those 3 things. are probably in conflict. If you
have good fishing you probably don’t have really
clear water, and you probably don’t have good
biotic integrity. You probably managed it for a
“put and take”, so you probably need to say, ‘For
use, how is it doing?” For each region what we are
going to want to know is, is it as good as it was
last year?
0. In the early discussions that I heard about EMAP,
it was supposed to be run on kind of a {?}
volume basis, where you look at wetlands, you
look at estuaries, you look at timberlands. Is that
still part od the program?
A. Yes, what you see in this population for region is
those particular categories. The population of
lakes, population of wetlands, population of
riparian habitats. In each of those resources
we’ve tended to have between 6 and 20 categories
of resources that we wanted to talk about.
[ end of tape]
Q. You have a slightly different suite of indicators for
each of your ecosystem types. One thing that I
have been puzzled about is, if you are measuring,
for a particular site or ecosystem, changes in the
ecosystem, for example, cut down the forest and
plant wheat there, which has a different suite of
indicators, how would you get continuity there?
A. One answer is, EMAP is not claiming to know
much about one particular site, In terms of classes
that are changing, forest to ag, wetlands to ag, or
ag back to forest, we will get that through land
use characterization efforts every 5 or at most, 10
years. we will pick up how much change has
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
McKenzie
occurred from one classification to another. The
other will be, for example for wetlands, we plan to
have to add maybe 5% per year just to keep a
reasonable sample size because some are going to
destroyed, we need the ability to pick up created
wetlands or some activities that add wetlands.
0. 1 used to study vegetation by the point plot
method, pushing a steel point down until it
touched a leaf, and! imagine a giant steel point
coming down out of the sky and establishing this
data point out of 21,600. Is that how it’s done?
and what happens after on the ground after that?
Which personnel goes out and looks at that point?
A. Well, yes, it was kind of a random point from the
sky. Actually it was this grid was laid out
randomly. Once the grid is laid out and you have
this 40 sq km hexagon, and that’s sort of our
initial guess at how big a piece of real estate you
need to look at to look for the kinds of patterns
we are looking for, and if you do that you have
looked at 1/16th of the total area of the country.
We are also looking at some things with less
resolution but look at everything, like the
AVHRRs, or the larger pixel size satellites to get
walk to wall coverage, but once you get the
sample and there is a lake in it, then a field crew
is going to go out and collect fish, water,
sediment, on the site, and those would be
analyzed.
0. OK, that’s the lake, but are you then going to do
one thing for waterways and then another to
characterize the dry land ecosystem, saying is this
forest, is this
A. No it’s the same approach for both, remember the
layers? At each point, from the GIS system there
will be a layer for lakes, a layer for streams, a
layer for forests a layer for wetlands, a layer for
agricultural types. So we will have all those types,
full landscape characterization.
0. I have a feeling you are mixing - - kind of, the
GIS thing is really broad scale indicators. And
then when you send a crew in you are really
looking at small scale things, and in those small
scale things there is a lot of variability, and over
10 years, that’s a long wait! I-low will you match
that to the broad scale maps, and how will you
account for the variability that you are going to
get in your satellite data. It seems to me you are
trying to relate unrelated things in a very basic
sense.
A. Clearly we have a scale problem, but one other
thing, in terms of indicators: we need to get real
good at selecting indicators. We want indicators
that are very integrative, that tell us about what
happened in the last year, not in the last five
minutes. So maybe it’s bio-accumulation in fish,
or presence or absence of fish, not something that
has a lot of noise. The other thing is to measure
a lot of sites within the region. My experience is
that the between site variability is greater than the
within site variability. Which means that to talk
about a region, I need more sites. I need more
information on more sites, and less information
on each site. To say that’s all I need is not the
answer. You need the reference site information,
you need the process kinds of information from
the more detailed studies to help you interpret
that. To take water chemistry studies from one
stream would probably not make much sense if
you only went out there once a year.
0. Will you be able through your sampling to detect
changes like the rate of decline in sage grouse and
decline in pheasant populations, would these
parameters be able to pick up that?
A. One answer is, I don’t think EMAP will ever
come up with a population [ count] of pheasants or
fish for a site. I don’t think we will ever quantify
the population. In the indicators we have looked
at so far, it looks as though we can detect changes
of 2% to 3% per year over a decade.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
101
-------
Concluding Panel Discussion:
Strategy for a Better Understanding of
Ecological Effects of Pesticide Use
Panelists: Wayne Landis, Western Washington University
Stewart McKenzie, USGS
Rick Parkin, EPA Region 10
Tom Pfleeger, EPA-ERL
Wayne Landis
The thing that struck me was the commonality
among people who like birds, and the people who like
things that get wet, in the kinds of questions we are
asking. There are times when I thank God that water
exists, and you can study organisms in it. It is an
excellent buffer, and I feel sorry for the terrestrial
people. Sometimes I think they should just study
amphibious organisms, that stay in the water part of
the time. But questions that they are asking are
basically same:
What should we look at? If we find something, do
we really care about it? and can we make some kinds
of management decisions, what kinds of scientific
conclusions can we reach on the basis of what we see?
If you have dead grouse, is that any more
important than having no cladocera in a stream? the
same kinds of questions.
The other thing is, how extraordinarily naive we
are. WE don’t really know very much, I wish we
could put things together a little bit better. That
gnaws on me as a scientist, and also it worries me
when a local citizen’s group calls up and says, “They
just treated the pilings here with an arsenic compound,
is that going to affect Bellingham Bay?” and they want
to know that for free. Or someone says, “My neighbor
is using a particular pesticide. Is this going to affect
my drinking water, is this going to affect the fishery?”
And even if we figure something out,it’s probably only
good for that case. I’d like to see a lot more
integration across discipline lines, and a lot more
discussion, because I think there is a lot more
commonality than we’d like to admit.
I have stood up here and tried to say interesting
things about biomarkers. I think that we should not
be so concerned about labels, but should try to
determine whether this information I am getting is
good, and will be useful. That should be the criterion,
not whether we get paid for it. And, can it be applied
to the next level - is going to be useful in studying a
population, or to a vertebrate biologist.
Stewart McKenzie
I have four quick things to say:
When you start out in a data collection program,
Please start with an objective or question. Defme it as
specifically as you can. Then decide how you are
going to interpret data that will satisfy your question
or objective. If you know you have a system of
analyzing your data that will help you meet your
objective, that’s going to help you an awful lot. The
tool you are going to use defines the amount and kind
of data that you are going to need to adequately
answer your question.
Research is the thing that’s going to make
differences in the world. When we work in the field,
we do our initial extractions right in the field, then we
are ready to go to the laboratory. We know we are
going to analyze for 44 compounds. We can analyze
for nanogranis per liter now. We filter a sample of
from 5 liters up to 200 liters, and we extract the
sample from what’s left on the filter. The detection
level is variable, because of the volume of sample we
use, and because of the ability of the analyst to get rid
of noise, to see a difference between signal and noise.
The final thing to look at is the significant figures.
One. When I talk to analysts that are doing this kind
of work, this is about the level of confidence you can
have, one significant figure.
Finally, you are likely to encounter something
completely new along the way. We had been
extracting with solvent from wet samples. The Oregon
Graduate Center thought they had a method used in
air quality sampling, that would enable us to sample
from suspended matter in the water. They got rid of
the water, then extracted with solvent. They got five
times the levels of some contaminants, that we had
been getting. What we think is that when a particle of
suspended material is surrounded by water, it is much
more difficult for an organic solvent to get in and
extract the contaminant.
We are concerned that our methodology may
change as we go along, because when we look at our
102
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
results we will have to say, “Yeah, different, but - look
what happened to our methods along the way.”
Rick Parkin
When I first came into the pesticide program, one
and a half years ago, we were right in the midst of a
comparative risk project. Headquarters had finished
theirs, and Region 10 was doing their version of it,
Both versions came to the conclusion that pesticides
rank high in terms of human health risk and
environmental risk, much higher than things like
Superfund, and so forth, but neither study had a lot of
data to back that up. It was professional judgement,
some call it ‘opinion’.
Sotheyaskedus,aswewereinthehighrisk
program, to do some daydreaming and come up with
some projects to lower that risk. The first thing we
said was, “Well, we don’t know how much risk there
is, [ soj we won’t know if we lower it”, and the second
was, “We can’t believe there’s no data out there. You
mean we allow the discharge of all those millions of
pounds of active ingredients and we don’t require
them to monitor it in any way. In an NPDS permit
we allow a few hundred pounds of turbidity units, and
we require them to at least monitor to see if they are
putting in what they said they would, if not to monitor
the effects in the water body itself.” And the answer
was, no, we don’t do any monitoring of all that. We
asked if we should be doing it, and second can it be
done, and if it can be done, show us how, and help us
do it.
And FIFRA, I believe Section 20 of FIFRA,
actually gives EPA the authority to do monitoring,
doesn’t give them any money to do it, but says the
administrator of EPA can do the monitoring he feels
is necessary to insure that there are no unreasonable
or unexpected risks occurring.
What we are asking this group to do, and what we
will be asking people who participate in the future, is
answer those questions for us. I think we have
answered the question, should we be doing some
monitoring, I think the answer is “yes”, and I think
some people think we can do something meaningful.
The key words I heard earlier in the conference were
“coordination”. We may not have to do a lot more
than we are doing right now, we may just have to
coordinate ourselves.
We are taking some low budget steps right now to
do that. I think we might be able to get more money.
If nothing else we are a pain in the ass to
headquarters trying to get money and talk them into
doing things our way, and we usually get at least a
little bit of our own way, and so I’m optimistic that we
might be able to move this process forward, if nothing
else we can throw a lot of energy at it. I think this
conference that Mike put together and threw a lot of
energy at is a great first step. And so I guess that I
would ask that those who attended and especially
t,hose who are still here, the hardy ones, is that you
will help us, when we try to collect information on
what you are working on, and when we ask you for
help in answering some of these questions, and when
Mike calls, take a few minutes to him for a few
minutes, it’s an interesting experience, if nothing else!
Tom Pfleeger
I think it’s fitting that I’m last. When I was asked
to be on this panel I didn’t realize that I was going to
have to make a statement.
It occurred to me when I was sitting up there, It
occurred to me that we didn’t have anyone else talking
about terrestrial plants, and that’s my field of
expertise, so I guess I am supposed to talk about
terrestrial plants. And I think from my perspective
they are a connecting mechanism for all these other
organisms, because they are a source of carbon and
energy for ecosystems, be they aquatic or terrestrial,
and terrestrial plants are exposed to the atmosphere
continuously, and are a good monitoring mechanism.
We heard how in aquatic systems, plants lack the
lipid systems that make other organisms good
monitors, but in terrestrial systems, we know that
conifers have the ability to take up lipophilic
compounds, and you can watch that, because the
needles stay on the conifers for a number of years, so
there’s a mechanism for using plants. Also, in this
concern about low levels of toxicants, specifically the
new herbicides where we don’t have the analytical
techniques to measure them, we can use plants to
biomonitor. Specifically, it’s been suggested that very
sensitive species such as sugar beets be set out in a
field in a and canbe used asan indicator of a
toxicant when analyticaj methods are not appropriate
or are impossible.
Another way plants can been used in a test is a
method that will be published next year: we have
known for a number of years that when a pesticide is
applied as much as 50% may be lost from the targeted
land as drift, and another large proportion of the
chemical volatilizes, but it is currently unknown where
that goes, whether it goes to ecosystems or is lost to
the atmosphere. And recently it has been shown
conclusively by a group in California that material
that volatilizes does move into adjacent ecosystems.
They placed potted plants in adjacent fields .a&r
application of the pesticide, and they were affected.
So I think plants do have a role, and we shouldn’t
overlook them.
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
103
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Susan Allen
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Laurie Carey
MET!
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Bill Denison
Department of Botany
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Duane Aiston
Bonneville Power Admin.
P. 0. Box 491 MMNC
Vancouver WA 98666
Karl Arne
Pesticides Section
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Garth Baxter
U. S. Forest Service, USDA
324 25th St.
Ogden UT 84404
Richard Bennett
Environmental Research Lab/ORD
EPA
200 SW 35th St
Corvallis OR 97333
Bob Bilby
Weyerhaeuser Technology Ctr
WTC-284
Tacoma WA 98477
Nigel Blakely
Department of Ecology
MS PV-11
Olympia WA 98504
Larry Blus
Patuxent Laboratory, USF&WS
480 SW Airport Rd.
Corvallis OR 97333
Jerry Bromenshenk
Division of Biological Sciences
University of Montana
Missoula MT 59812
Phyllis Buchholz
ORD/ERL; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Donald R. Buhler
Toxicology Program
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Mike Castellano
Forest Service Laboratory
U. S. Forest Service, USDA
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis OR 97331
Alan Chartrand
Dames & Moore
2025 1st Ave.
Seattle, WA 98121
Pat Cirone ES-098
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave.
Seatle WA 98101
Jerry Collins
Southern National Technical Center
Soil Conservation Service,USDA
P. 0. Box 6567
Fort Worth TX 76115
Jack Connelly
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
P.O. Box25
Boise ID 83707
Wm. E. Cooper
Inst. of Environmental Toxicology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Cathleen Corlett
Botany Department
Bureau of Land Management
1717 Fabrey Rd., SE
Salem OR 97302
Kent Crawford
U. S. Geological Survey
1’. o. Box 1107
Harrisburg PA 17108
John Deagen
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Nancy Demond
Bonneville Power Admin.
P.O. Box 491 MMNC
Vancouver WA 98666
Crystal Driver
Battelle NW Laboratories
P. 0. Box 999 K4-12
Richiand WA 99352
Bruce Duncan ES-098
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle WA 98101
Kristina Dunn
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Ted Ernst
Computer Sciences Corp.
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Anne Fairbrother
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Ken Feigner
Pesticides Section
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mike Firestone
OPTS
EPA
401 M St., SW
Washington DC 20460
Lisa Ganio
MET!
200 SW 35th
Corvallis OR 97333
Ronald R. Garton
EA Engineering, Science & Tech.
Inc.
1420 Ribier Place
Corvallis OR 97330
Duncan Gilroy
110 NW 32nd St.
Corvallis OR 97333
AT-083
AT-083
TS-788
104
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Joe Greene
Department of Civil Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis Or 97331
Bill Griffis
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
R. A. Grove
Toxicology Program
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Gretchen Hayslip
Office of Water Planning ES-097
U. S. EPA
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Charles S. Henny
US Fish and Wildlife Service
480 SW Airport Rd
Corvallis OR 97333
Connie Hoheisel
OPP/EPA
401 M St., SW
Washington DC 20460
Mike Hooper
TIWET, Inst. Wildl. Ecol.& Toxicol.
Clemson University
P.O. Box 2278
Clemson SC 29632
Thom Hooper
Dept. of Fisheries
Rm 115 Gen. Admin.
Olympia WA 98504
Elaine R. Ingham
Dept. of Botany and Plant Pathology
Oregon State University
Cordley Hall 2082
Corvallis OR 97331-2902
Rod Inman
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Jeffrey J. Jenkins
Dept of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Weniger Hall 339
Corvallis OR 97331
Art Johnson
Department of Ecology
Airdustrial Bldg. 8
7171 Cleanwater Lane,
Olympia WA 98504
Colleen B. Johnson
NSI
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Joe Johnson
Bonneville Power Admin.
P. 0. Box 491 MMEA
Vancouver WA 98666
Margaret Jones
Pesticides Section Sec. 5SPT-7
EPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago IL 60604
Philip Kauzloric
Department of Ecology PV-11
Olympia WA 98504
Rose Lombardi
Division of Agriculture
Alaska Dept. Natural Resources
Palmer AK 99645
Bruce Macler
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco CA 94105
Brad Marden
NSI
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Mike Marsh
Pesticides Section
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Elizabeth Materna
Portland Field Station
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
2600 SE 98th Ave. #100
Portland OR 97266
Geoffrey B. Matthews
Computer Science Department
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98226
Robin Matthews
Huxley Col. Environmental Studies
Western Washington University
Bellingham WA 98225
Dan McKenzie
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 Sw 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Stuart McKenzie
US Geological Survey
10615 SE Cherry Blossom L
Portland OR 97216
Richard Miller
TAXON
(address not given)
Terry Miller
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
C. L. Miranda
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Andy Moldenke
Department of Entomology
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Jeff Momot
Olympia Enhancement Field Office
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2625 Parkmont Ln SW, Bldg. B
Olympia WA 98502
Edward Monnig
U. S. Forest Service USDA
P. 0. Box 7669
Missoula MT 59807
H75-O7C Wayne Landis
Institute of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225
AT-083
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECTS BE MONITORED?
105
-------
LIST OF ATFENDEES
David Morman
U. S. Forest Service, USDA
2600 State St.
Salem OR 97310
Robert Plotnikoff LH-14
Surface Water Investigations, DOE
Airdustrial Complex, Bldg 8
Olympia, WA 98504
Safu Shirazi
ORD/ERL; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
William Muffins
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4696 Overland Road, Rm. 576
Boise ID 83705
Ed Rashin
Department of Ecology LH 14
Airdustrial Complex, Bldg. 8
Olympia WA 98504
Cha Smith
Washington Toxics Coalition
4516 University Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Alan Nebeker
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Michael Newton
Department of Forestry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
Gary O’Neal
Air and Toxics Division AT-081
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Rick Parkin
Pesticides Section
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Gary Pascoe
Environmental Toxicology Intl.
600 Stewart Suite 700
Seattle WA 98101
William T. Pennell
Pacific Northwest Labs
P. o. Box 999, K6-98
Richiand WA 99352
Jeff Peterson
MET!
200 SW 35th
Corvallis OR 97333
Greg Pettitt
Surface and Ground Waters
Dept. of Environmental Quality
811 SW 6th
Portland OR 97204
Tom Pfleeger
Environmental Research Laboratory
ORD, EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Hillman Ratsch
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
John Ratti
Department of Wildlife Resources
University of Idaho
Moscow ID 83843
Christine R. Ribic
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Ernie Rose
Raptor Center
Woodland Park Zoo
5500 Phinney N.
Seattle WA 98103
Roger Rosentretter
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
3380 Americana Terrace
Boise ID 83706
David Rouritry
Solid and Hazardous Waste Mgt.
Department of Ecology MS-P V-li
Olympia WA 98504-8711
Paul Rygiewicz
ERL/ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th
Corvallis OR 97333
Mike Rylko
Water Division WD-139
PA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Carol Schuler
Portland Field Station
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
2600 SE 98th Ave. #100
Portland OR 97266
Gary Smith
Portland Field Station
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
2600 SE 98th Ave. #100
Portland OR 97266
Michelle Stevie
Fisheries
Squaxin Nation
Shelton WA 98584
Sandy Thiele
ORD/ERL; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis OR 97333
Walter Thies
Forest Service Laboratory
U. S. Forest Service, USDA
3200 Jefferson Way
Corvallis OR 97331
Pat Thompson
Dept of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Weniger Hall
Corvallis OR 97331
Buck Waters
Bureau of Land Management,
Code 230
U. S. Department of Interior
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington DC 20240
Howard E. Westerdahl
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999
Richland WA 99352
Daniel Whitney
Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 790
Boise ID 83701
Thom Whittier
Management Technology, NSI
1600 SW Western Blvd
Corvallis OR 97333
AT-083
106
PESTICIDES IN NATURAL SYSTEMS:
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Ann Wick
Pesticide Management Division
Department of Agriculture
406 Gen Adniin. Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504
Bill Williams
ERL-ORD; EPA
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis WA 97333
Bob Wisseman
Western Aquatic Institute
3490 NW Deer Run Rd.
Corvallis OR 97330
James Witt
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331
HOW CAN THEIR EFFECFS BE MONITORED? 107
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OmcE: 1 991 .593 . 3 4i . 30 42
------- |