1 / 34

Melissa Churchel 1 , Jim Hanula 2 , Wayne Berisford 1 and Jim Vose 2 1 Department of Entomology University of Georgi

Environmental Fate of Imidacloprid. Melissa Churchel 1 , Jim Hanula 2 , Wayne Berisford 1 and Jim Vose 2 1 Department of Entomology University of Georgia 2 USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. University of Georgia. Chemical Control Options. Stem Injection with

charlotte
Download Presentation

Melissa Churchel 1 , Jim Hanula 2 , Wayne Berisford 1 and Jim Vose 2 1 Department of Entomology University of Georgi

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Environmental Fate of Imidacloprid Melissa Churchel1, Jim Hanula2, Wayne Berisford1 and Jim Vose2 1 Department of Entomology University of Georgia 2 USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station University of Georgia

  2. Chemical Control Options Stem Injection with Imidacloprid Horticultural Oil Soil Injection with Imidacloprid

  3. What’s the Forest Service Doing? • National Forests in the south are trying to save a remnant population of hemlocks throughout their forest

  4. Saving a Remnant Population Trying to save 60 trees in selected areas using soil injection of imidacloprid

  5. Guidelines for Soil Injection on National Forests in GA and NC • Sample soil to determine presence of highly permeable soils (sands or gravel) • Scout area for presence of surface water (springs, creeks, ponds, bogs, etc.) • Eliminate any trees with a direct vegetative connection to surface water from soil injection. • Treat 60 trees per selected area

  6. Imidacloprid • PROBLEM: • Highly mobile but soil absorption increases with increasing organic matter content • Does imidacloprid make its way through the soil after injected and enter nearby streams?

  7. Imidacloprid Toxicity • Toxic to aquatic organisms • LC50 values range from 10.5 to 10440 ppb for aquatic insects

  8. Our Objectives • Determine if imidacloprid entered the streams using the guidelines • Determine if the treatments outlined by the national forests were affecting stream insects • Determine if the treatments were effectively controlling HWA

  9. Methods – Study Sites

  10. Methods • Selected 4 small streams with moderate flow rates and sufficient hemlocks • 2 treatment methods used • Holcomb Tributary, Addie Branch, and Billingsley Creek: • Treated 60 trees around each stream using Kioritz soil injectorto inject imidacloprid (Merit 75 WSP) • 1 g ai per inch diam in 10 ml H2O • Injected 2 inches deep, 1 injection/inch diameter in a ring 12 inches from tree bole. • ~ 670g ai. applied per site • Treated November 1, 2005

  11. Holcomb Tributary

  12. Addie Branch

  13. Billingsley Creek

  14. Methods • Dryman Fork • 2000 ft treatment area • Treated all trees within 50 ft on either side of stream with at least 10 inch diameter at base • 88 trees next to stream treated with Mauget II Generation Tree Injector • 109 trees treated with soil injections • Treated May 17, 18, and 19 2006 • Adjacent watershed used as reference condition

  15. Insect Sampling • 4 riffles sampled in each stream using a Surber sampler with fixed area of 1 m2 • Collected all contents with sampler down to 5 cm • Large cobble was scrubbed to remove insects • Samples preserved in 95% alcohol • Large samples were subsampled as needed • All larger insects were identified to genus or lowest taxonomic level possible

  16. Surber Sampler

  17. Samplingfor Larger Insects and Their Relatives Post-treatment Sampling • Started 1 week after insecticide application • Sampled bi-weekly for first 4 months • Sampled monthly for rest of study (2 years)

  18. Water Sampling Post-treatment Sampling • Grab samples taken downstream of treatment area using 1000 ml glass bottle • Samples stored in cold room until analysis • Analysis conducted by the University of Georgia, Pesticide and Hazardous Waste Laboratory

  19. Extraction and Analysis of Imidacloprid from Water 1 2 3 Stopper funnel; shake; allow layers to separate. 500 ml sample into 1-L Separatory Funnel Add 75 mL methylene chloride 4 8 Analyze on HPLC Drain the MeCl2 layer; repeat Step 2-3 twice more; combine all drained layers. Concentrate the extract under nitrogen 7 6 5 Filter the extract (removes sodium sulfate) Add sodium sulfate to flask & swirl (removes excess water)

  20. Data Analysis • Number of taxa • Number of mayflies, stoneflies and caddis flies collectively (EPT) • Abundance • North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) for each stream and sample date • Index specific to SE U.S. • Indicator of general health of stream biotic community

  21. Data Analysis North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) NCBI = ∑ TVi Ni Total N Where: TVi = tolerance value of the ith taxa Ni = abundance of the ith taxa Total N = number of individuals in the sample Tolerance values range from 0 to 10 Abundance values are transformed into Rare (1-2 per sample), Common (3-9 per sample), or Abundant (≥10 per sample

  22. Data Analysis • Data for each stream pooled by season • Compared each stream to reference • If results were significantly lower than in the reference, we analyzed seasonal variability within that stream • Determine if a significant reduction in the macroinvertebrate community occurred

  23. Results • Collected 217,587 insects and relatives • 83 taxa from 18 orders and 66 families • Trichoptera and Diptera most diverse

  24. Average Number of Taxa

  25. Mayflies, Stoneflies and Caddis Flies

  26. Average Abundance

  27. NCBI Scores Mountain Ecoregion: Water Quality Class < 4.18 Excellent 4.17 - 5.09 Good 5.10 - 5.91 Good-Fair 5.92 - 7.05 Fair > 7.05 Poor

  28. Water Samples • A water sample was collected each time we sampled insects • Holcomb Tributary - Oct. 22, 2007 • < 1.0 ppb • No evidence of an impact on aquatic macroinvertebrates

  29. HWA Control • ????

  30. Insect Sampling Summary • Avg. Number of Taxa • Addie Branch – Winter 2006/07 significantly lower than reference stream • But not lower than Fall ’06 • Due to seasonal variation & smaller community of invertebrates overall than in reference

  31. Insect Sampling Summary • EPT Taxa • Addie Branch – Summer 2006 significantly lower than reference stream • Also significantly lower than Spring 2006 • Follows same pattern of seasonal variation due to emergence of adults as other streams • More pronounced due to smaller community

  32. Insect Sampling Summary • Abundance • Addie Branch – Fall 06 & Winter 06/07 • Dryman Fork – Fall 07 • Significantly lower than reference stream • Not significantly different from previous season • NCBI • None with significantly lower scores than reference stream

  33. Conclusion • Good news – treatments had no effect on macroinvertebrate communities in mountain streams • A small amount of imidacloprid was detected in Holcomb Tributary, but had no effect on invertebrates

  34. Implications • Soil injections can safely be used in the southern Appalachians • Only a trace amount of imidacloprid entered the streams over a 2 year period • Not enough to significantly impact the aquatic organisms

More Related