models for pesticide selection
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Models for Pesticide Selection

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 45

Models for Pesticide Selection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 75 Views
  • Uploaded on

Models for Pesticide Selection. Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/. Pesticide selection criteria: the 3 E’s. Efficacy Economics Environmental & health impact. Data Sources. MSDS Sheet Label

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Models for Pesticide Selection' - kovit


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
models for pesticide selection
Models for Pesticide Selection

Jennifer Grant

NYS IPM Program

Cornell University

http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/

pesticide selection criteria the 3 e s
Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s
  • Efficacy
  • Economics
  • Environmental & health impact
data sources
Data Sources
  • MSDS Sheet
  • Label
  • Cornell Pesticide Management and Education Program, PIMS site
  • EPA pesticide fact sheets
  • EXTOXNET pesticide summaries
  • Pesticide Action Network (PAN) database
  • Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database
water impact models for agriculture
Water impact models for Agriculture
  • Chemical and physical properties of pesticides that affect environmental fate (e.g. solubility, soil adsorption)
  • Agricultural crops (row crops with some bare soil)
  • Physical properties of soils

Based on:

water impact models for agriculture5
Water impact models for Agriculture
  • WinPST (USDA National Resource Conservation Service’s Windows Pesticide Screening Tool)
  • GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management)
  • NAPRA (National Pesticide Risk Analysis)
  • GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Source)
  • SPISP (Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure)
water impact models for turfgrass
Water impact models for Turfgrass
  • TurfPQ (model for runoff from turfgrass, Haith, 2001)
    • estimates pesticide in runoff events from turf
    • Accounts for thatch
    • Uses Carbon content, OM and bulk density specific to turf
    • Useful for water quality studies and environmental assessments
model complexity
Model Complexity
  • Ecological impacts (e.g. toxicity to fish, other non-targets)
  • Human health impacts
  • Site specificity (e.g. soil type, slope)
  • Management influences
nrcs three tiered pesticide environmental risk screening
NRCS Three-Tiered Pesticide Environmental Risk Screening
  • Tier 1 - SPISP
  • Tier 2 = NAPRA
    • Utilizes GLEAMS
    • environmental benefits of management alternatives
    • Regional climatic conditions
    • Results consider both the off-site movement of pesticide and its toxicity to non-target species
  • Tier 3 - NAPRA
    • Site specific
    • Generic inputs are replaced by individual producers\' filing records and field measured soils data
integrated models for selection
Integrated models for selection

Decision Tool for Integrated Pesticide Selection and Management (IATP)

  • Minnesota corn & soybeans
  • Water contamination focus (WinPST)
  • Human exposure (drinking water)
  • Fish as non-target organism
integrated models for selection11
Integrated models for selection

Environmental EIL

  • Assigns an “environmental cost” to pest management, based on opinion surveys (contingent valuation)
  • Largely theoretical, but assigns values

(Higley & Wintersteen, 1992)

integrated models for selection13
Integrated models for selection

Environmental Yardstick(Netherlands)

  • Values risk as environmental impact points
  • Based on
    • Acute risk to water organisms
    • Risk of groundwater contamination
    • Acute and chronic risks to soil organisms
  • Provides numerical value for a pesticide applied at a specific rate
  • Expressed as environmental impact points (EIP)

(www.agralin.nl/milieumeetlat; Reus and Pak, 1993; Reus and Leendertse, 2000)

integrated models for selection14
Integrated models for selection

Environmental Yardstick(cont’d)

Currently used in the Netherlands

  • Farm & Greenhouse decision support tool
  • Environmental performance incentive
  • Standards for eco-labels
  • Policy tool

(www.agralin.nl/milieumeetlat; Reus and Pak, 1993; Reus and Leendertse, 2000)

integrated models for selection15
Integrated models for selection

Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)

  • Original model published in 1992 (Kovach et al.) for food crops
  • Three components: worker, consumer, ecological
  • Provides numerical value for a pesticide, applied at a specific rate
  • Can use to select pesticides or compare systems
slide16
EIQ

=

{C x [DT x 5 + (DT x P)]

+

[(C x ((S + P)/2) x SY) + L]

+

[(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}

÷ 3

slide17
EIQ
  • Farm worker: Acute and chronic toxicity to humans.
  • Consumer: Food residues, chronic toxicity to humans, leachability to groundwater.
  • Ecological: Aquatic and terrestrial non-target toxicity (fish, bees), leachability, persistence.
slide18
EIQ
  • Risk = toxicity x potential for exposure
  • E.g. effect on fish depends on toxicity to fish, and likelihood of fish encountering pesticide.
    • Persistence
    • Surface loss potential
farm worker component
Farm worker Component

Applicator+ Picker

(C * DT * 5)+ (C * DT * P)

Dermal Toxicity

Chronic Toxicity

Plant surface residue half-life

chronic toxicity
Chronic Toxicity
  • Average of Reproductive, Teratogenic, Mutagenic, & Oncogenic effects
  • Low value if no evidence of carcinogenicity
  • High value if probable human carcinogen
dermal toxicity
Dermal Toxicity
  • Dermal LD50 rabbits
  • Dermal LD50 rats

1 = > 2000 mg/kg

3 = 200 - 2000 mg/kg

5 = 0 - 200 mg/kg

plant surface residue
Plant Surface Residue

1 = < 2 weeks

3 = 2-4 weeks

5 = > 4 weeks

Herbicides

Pre-emergent = 1

Post-emergent = 3

consumer component
Consumer Component

Food residue+ Groundwater

(C * ((S + P)/2) * SY)+ (L)

Soil half-life

Plant half-life

Mode of Action: Systemic or non

Leaching potential

Chronic Toxicity

slide24

Exposure

Persistence

• Plant half life

• Soil half life

slide25

Ecological Component

Fish + Bird + Bee + Beneficials

Each organism X potential for exposure

ecological component
Fish toxicity (F)

Surface Loss Potential (R)

Bird Toxicity (D)

Soil half life (S)

Plant surface half life (P)

Bee Toxicity (Z)

Beneficial Arthropod toxicity (B)

Ecological component

= [(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3)

+ (B x P x 5)]

beneficial arthropod impact
Beneficial arthropod impact
  • SELCTV database on 600 chemicals, 400 natural enemies (Oregon State Univ., Theiling and Croft, 1988)
  • Data generated more recently --standardized on 5 natural enemies (insects) and 3 microbials
    • (Cornell, Petzoldt & Kovach, 2002)
slide28
EIQ

=

{C x [DT x 5 + (DT x P)]

+

[(C x ((S + P)/2) x SY) + L]

+

[(F x R) + (D x ((S + P)/2) x 3) + (Z x P x 3) + (B x P x 5)]}

÷ 3

the poison is in the dose30
The poison is in the dose!

An EIQ value must be multiplied by the rate it is applied. This yields a “field EIQ” that can be compared.

additional considerations
Additional Considerations
  • Resistance management
  • Ease of application
  • Weather conditions
  • Availability of product
  • Availability of equipment
conventional red delicious
Conventional Red Delicious

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

Nova

Captan

Lorsban

Lorsban

Thiodan

Guthion

Cygon

Omite

Sevin

Kelthane

65.3

16.2

35.0

35.0

34.0

26.3

49.6

27.5

21.7

26.1

.4

.5

.4

.5

.5

.35

.43

.68

.5

.35

4

6

1

2

1

2

3

2

1

1

0.3

3.0

1.5

3.0

3.0

1.5

2.0

2.0

1.0

4.5

31

24

21

105

51

14

128

75

11

41

Total field EIQ 501

ipm strategy red delicious apples
IPM Strategy, Red Delicious Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

13.6

10.5

1.4

19.1

17.5

Nova

Captan

Dipel

Sevin

Guthion

65.3

16.2

10.6

21.7

26.3

.4

.5

.06

.8

.35

4

1

3

1

2

.13

1.3

.73

1.1

.95

Total field EIQ 62.1

ipm strategy liberty apples
IPM Strategy, Liberty Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

Imidan

16.1

.5

3

1.5

36.2

Total field EIQ 36.2

organic strategy red delicious apples
Organic Strategy, Red Delicious Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

997

47

1

Sulfur

Rot/pyr

Ryania

26.4

16.3

10.6

.9

.04

.001

7

6

1

6

12

58

Total field EIQ 1045

summary
SUMMARY

Strategy Field EIQ

1045

501

62

36

Organic

Conventional

IPM

IPM on Liberty

is the eiq useful for turf
Is the EIQ useful for Turf?
  • Toxicity and environmental fate characteristics of the pesticides are the same for ag. and turf
  • The arrangement of these data in the formula are similar to what would be appropriate for turfgrass
  • the EIQ and other quantitative models are the best we can do until there is a model specifically designed for turf
environmental impact of pesticide applications bethpage project 2004 expressed as field eiq
Environmental Impact of Pesticide Applications, Bethpage Project, 2004, expressed as Field EIQ

(Grant & Rossi 2006)

eiq challenges
EIQ Challenges
  • Standardization of data & data gaps
  • Weighting may not meet criteria of user
  • Not site specific
turfgrass eiq
Turfgrass EIQ
  • Adjust formula to better reflect turfgrass system
    • replace bee toxicity with earthworm toxicity
    • “User” for consumer (e.g. golfer)
    • Weight factors appropriately for turfgrass
    • Incorporate TurfPQ?
  • Include site specific information such as soil type and water proximity
pesticide selection criteria the 3 e s45
Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s
  • Efficacy
  • Economics
  • Environmental & health impact
ad