REVIEWS AND ANALYSES

REVIEWS AND ANALYSES

Field Studies on Exposure, Effects, and Risk Mitigation of AquaticNonpoint-Source Insecticide Pollution: A Review

Ralf Schulz*

ABSTRACT et al., 1999; Humenik et al., 1987; Line et al., 1997; Loagueet al., 1998). Various routes of nonpoint-source pesticideRecently, much attention has been focused on insecticides as atransport into surface waters have been addressed (Baker,group of chemicals combining high toxicity to invertebrates and fishes1983; Edwards, 1973; Groenendijk et al., 1994; Schiavonwith low application rates, which complicates detection in the field.et al., 1995).Assessment of these chemicals is greatly facilitated by the description

and understanding of exposure, resulting biological effects, and risk Surface runoff due to rainfall events has attracted themitigation strategies in natural surface waters under field conditions most attention and several studies have summarizeddue to normal farming practice. More than 60 reports of insecticide- data on pesticides in runoff (Baker, 1983; Leonard, 1990;compound detection in surface waters due to agricultural nonpoint- Wauchope, 1978; Willis and McDowell, 1982). Edge-source pollution have been published in the open literature during of-field losses of pesticides range from less than 1% ofthe past 20 years, about one-third of them having been undertaken the amount applied to 10% or more. Losses are greatestin the past 3.5 years. Recent reports tend to concentrate on specific

when severe rainstorms occur soon after pesticide appli-routes of pesticide entry, such as runoff, but there are very few studiescation. The relative importance of sediment transporton spray drift–borne contamination. Reported aqueous-phase insecti-versus runoff water depends primarily on the soil ad-cide concentrations are negatively correlated with the catchment sizesorption properties of the pesticide (Wauchope, 1978).and all concentrations of �10 �g/L (19 out of 133) were found in

smaller-scale catchments (�100 km2). Field studies on effects of insec- The potential for pesticide input into surface water fol-ticide contamination often lack appropriate exposure characterization. lowing passage through the soil, including drainageAbout 15 of the 42 effect studies reviewed here revealed a clear transport, has been reviewed by Flury (1996). Particu-relationship between quantified, non-experimental exposure and ob- larly in loamy soils, there is evidence that even stronglyserved effects in situ, on abundance, drift, community structure, or adsorbed chemicals can move along preferential flowdynamics. Azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, and endosulfan were fre-

pathways. Although a direct comparison appears diffi-quently detected at levels above those reported to reveal effects incult, Flury (1996) concluded that the mass lost by leach-the field; however, knowledge about effects of insecticides in the fielding seems generally to be smaller than that lost by run-is still sparse. Following a short overview of various risk mitigationoff, depending of course on the slope of the fields.or best management practices, constructed wetlands and vegetated

ditches are described as a risk mitigation strategy that have only There are several generic scenarios for spray drift andrecently been established for agricultural insecticides. Although only spray deposition on surface waters. A large number of11 studies are available, the results in terms of pesticide retention standardized drift studies conducted in Germany haveand toxicity reduction are very promising. Based on the reviewed been summarized by Ganzelmeier et al. (1995) and up-literature, recommendations are made for future research activities. dated by Rautmann et al. (2001). The results were used

to derive basic drift values widely used in EuropeanUnion countries for regulatory risk assessment and 95th-

Agricultural pesticides are indispensable in mod- or 90th-percentile values for deposited drift material forern farming. They are highly beneficial to the crops distances between 3 and 250 m. On the other hand, the

being grown, but their effects are less than desirable Spray Drift Task Force’s (SDTF) data set was analyzedwhen they leave the target compartments of the agricul- and used to develop generic deposition curves with 95%tural ecosystem. Any unintended loss of pesticide is not confidence limits for distances between 0 and 549 monly wasteful, but also represents a reduced efficiency (USEPA, 1999a), which are proposed for use in riskand incurs increased costs to the user and the nontarget assessment. Short- or long-range atmospheric transportenvironment (Bowles and Webster, 1995; Falconer, with subsequent deposition into surface waters has re-1998). Nonpoint-source pesticide pollution from agricul- cently been reported as a route of entry for current-usetural areas is widely regarded as one of the greatest pesticides into the Sierra Nevada (Le Noir et al., 1999),causes of contamination of surface waters (Gangbazo but not enough information is available to assess its

importance. In addition to measurement of actual expo-sure concentrations, models that predict exposure toZoological Institute, Technical University, Fasanenstrasse 3, D-38092pesticides in surface waters have been developed andBraunschweig, Germany. Received 30 Aug. 2002. *Corresponding

author ([email protected]). are currently used in ecological risk assessment basedon worst-case and probabilistic scenarios (Adriaanse etPublished in J. Environ. Qual. 33:419–448 (2004).al., 1997; Groenendijk et al., 1994; Hart, 2001). ASA, CSSA, SSSA

677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA Among the various types of pesticides that potentially

419

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.

420 J. ENVIRON. QUAL., VOL. 33, MARCH–APRIL 2004

contaminate surface water, insecticides play an impor- tic interactions among individual stressors and betweenanthropogenic and natural perturbations. Thus, it is es-tant role in aquatic ecosystems as documented by the

accumulated data on their detrimental effects to com- sential that predictions derived from experimental ap-proaches be validated in natural ecosystems and thatmunity structure, reproduction, and developmental pro-

cesses among several taxa including macroinvertebrates, long-term monitoring efforts be implemented to ensurethat unexpected long-term ecosystem effects do not oc-amphibians, birds, fish, and other wildlife (Colborn et

al., 1993; Scott et al., 1987; Thompson, 1996). According cur (Cairns et al., 1994). Ecosystem-level informationis not only relevant to the effects of pollutants, but isto the database of the United States National Center

for Food and Agricultural Policy, the use of insecticides also considered beneficial for exposure assessment infacilitating the monitoring of pollutant presence in envi-in the USA has increased by 18.2%, from 67 116 metric

tons in 1992 to 82 080 metric tons of active ingredient in ronmental compartments (Touart and Maciorowski,1997; Van Dijk et al., 2000).1997 (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy,

1997). Due to their relatively high toxicity to aquatic Although some reviews or summary reports on thepresence of insecticides in various nonpoint routes havefauna (Brock et al., 2000), many insecticides are regarded

as priority pollutants among the variety of chemicals been published (e.g., Ganzelmeier et al., 1995; Wau-chope, 1978), there are almost no such studies ad-entering aquatic systems via nonpoint sources. From a

review of a pesticide risk reduction program in Ontario, dressing work that has been done on the presence oreffects of insecticides in the receiving surface waters.Canada using data collected from 1973 to 1998, Gallivan

et al. (2001) concluded that major reductions in risk can Willis and McDowell (1982) listed toxicity data andphysicochemical properties for pesticides that occur inbe achieved by reducing the use of high-risk pesticides

(e.g., insecticides) on fruit and vegetables. surface runoff. An overview of the biological effects ofagriculturally derived surface-water pollutants is givenAs for most pesticides, there are numerous reports

related to the single-species laboratory toxicity of insec- by Cooper (1993). Conservation tillage in relation topesticide runoff in surface waters is generally summa-ticides (USEPA, 1995). The microcosm and mesocosm

studies available have recently been summarized and rized by Fawcett et al. (1994) and what is known aboutthe ecotoxicology of wetlands has recently been summa-reviewed by Brock et al. (2000). Keeping in mind that

the ultimate scientific goal in the ecological risk assess- rized (Lewis et al., 1999). Studies on pesticide ecotoxi-cology in tropical aquatic habitats in Central Americament of pesticides is to understand and assess potential

effects under field conditions, there is a need for expo- were summarized by Castillo et al. (1997), with emphasison the pesticide contents in the biota, and Clark et al.sure and effect studies conducted in natural surface wa-

ters affected by normal farming practices. From a limno- (1993) reported ecotoxicological examples from coastalwetlands. From all these reviews, the lack of data refer-logical point of view, Schindler (1998) has compared

the results of bottle and mesocosm experiments with ring to insecticide exposure, effects, and risk mitigationunder field conditions is apparent.whole-ecosystem experiments using the Experimental

Lake Area (ELA) in northwestern Ontario, Canada.He concluded that the upscaling from mesocosm to AIMSwhole lakes and even from small lakes to bigger ones

The purpose of this review is to:may result in considerable shortcomings and misinter-pretations due to major differences in spatial and tempo- • compile and interpret the results of case studies in whichral scales. Moreover, biochemical and fitness differences nonpoint-source insecticide contamination, resulting from

normal farming practices, was measured in aquatic habi-in sensitivity to insecticides of field and laboratory-tats, to describe the exposure situation;derived populations of midge (Chironomus riparius) have

• compile and interpret the results of field studies in whichbeen reported (Hoffman and Fisher, 1994), further illus-the effects of insecticides were measured in aquatic habi-trating the difficulties in the translation of experimentaltats under normal agricultural practice, to describe theresults to natural environments.effect situation;Although laboratory tests using aquatic organisms are • evaluate the field situation through a comparison of expo-

of unquestionable benefit in assessing the hazard of sure and effect studies;pesticides to aquatic ecosystems, the simplistic environ- • compile and interpret the results of field studies on themental conditions under which they are often conducted use of constructed wetlands as a risk mitigation strategylimit their predictive capability. In the early 1980s, Koe- for aquatic nonpoint-source insecticide pollution; and

• propose directions for future research efforts.man (1982) emphasized developing test systems thatreflect a greater complexity. Although multispecies ap-proaches, subsequently developed, eliminated some of

EXPOSUREthese problems, these protocols still suffer from inherentlimitations when laboratory results are extrapolated to There are various studies reporting the pesticide con-predicted effects on natural aquatic ecosystems. Ecosys- tamination of surface waters on a national or even inter-tems are typically affected by several stressors (e.g., national scale. Results of the United States Nationalvarying water levels, habitat alterations, chemical pollu- Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program per-tion) simultaneously, and the intensity of each varies formed by the U.S. Geological Survey were reportedthrough space and time. Cumulative effects of these by Larson et al. (1999). The data available for northern

European countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Fin-multiple effects are altered by synergistic and antagonis-

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.

SCHULZ: EXPOSURE, EFFECTS, AND RISK MITIGATION OF INSECTICIDE POLLUTION 421

land have been summarized on behalf of the European drinking water, ground water, dam water, and springwater, pesticides were detected about five times moreUnion by Lundbergh et al. (1995), those for the Nether-

lands by the Committee for Integral Water Manage- often below the European drinking water thresholdlevel for individual pesticide compounds of 0.1 �g/Lment/Committee for the Enforcement of the Water Pol-

lution Act (1995) and Teunissen-Ordelmann and Schrap than above this level, which can be simply explained bythe higher likelihood of low-level pollution occurring(1997), those for England and Wales by Environment

Agency (2000), and those for Germany by the Federal and thus being detected. Although similar results wouldbe expected, for river water twice as many detectionsEnvironmental Agency (Federal Environmental Agency,

1999) and Zullei-Seibert (1990). Some data for Den- were above the 0.1 �g/L level than below, suggesting anon-negligible matrix influence of the type of water tomark are reviewed by Mogensen and Spliid (1995), but

this report deals exclusively with herbicides. However, be analyzed. It follows from these results that manylow-level contaminations are presumably not detectedmost of these studies are based on regular governmental

monitoring programs and are not discussed further in in agricultural rivers and lakes, simply because of thematrix influence. A further aspect adding to the diffi-this review.

Table 1 lists case studies published since 1982 on culty to detect current-use insecticide contamination isthe fact that the toxicity of modern insecticides, such asthe detection of insecticides in surface waters due to

agricultural nonpoint-source pollution. The reports are pyrethroids, is generally higher than for older groupsof compounds. Therefore, lower application rates aresorted according to the insecticide compound; for a

given compound detections in water are listed first, fol- used to obtain the same level of pest control, resultingalso in lower-level contamination in the environment,lowed by detections in suspended particles and sedi-

ments. There are numerous studies published before which is considerably more difficult to detect.Results of an extensive program on pesticide loss to1982 that are not included in Table 1, most of them

dealing with organochlorine insecticides (e.g., Bradley stream water from agricultural areas of the Great Lakescatchment in Ontario, Canada revealed the presenceet al., 1972; Cope, 1966; Croll, 1969; Gorbach et al.,

1971; Greichus et al., 1977; Greve, 1972; Heckman, 1981; of carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, andethion (Table 1) in water samples at levels up to 3.8Herzel, 1971; Jackson et al., 1974; Kuhr et al., 1974;

Miles, 1976; Miles and Harris, 1971, 1973; Pollero et al., �g/L (Frank et al., 1982; Richards and Baker, 1993).Later investigations focused on the contamination of1976; Richard et al., 1975). Ramesh et al. (1991) gave a

short overview of exemplary studies on organochlorine farm wells with pesticides (Frank et al., 1990, 1987a,1987b). Various studies in British Columbia, Canadacontamination in surface waters. In 1960, a study on the

input of parathion into a farm pond in South Carolina were stimulated by detection of endosulfan at a veryhigh concentration of 1530 �g/L in ditch water duringwas started (Nicholson et al., 1962), which is regarded

as one of the pioneer investigations on insecticides in spray application on adjacent fields. Levels in sedimentsvaried in affected ditches between 2 and 150 �g/kg, withagricultural surface waters.

During the past two decades, the number of published an average of 18.8 �g/kg (Wan, 1989). A follow-up studyfocused on organophosphate insecticides, of which dia-studies has increased continuously. A total of 10 studies

were reported in the 7-yr period between 1982 and 1989, zinon, dimethoate, fensulfothion, and parathion (Ta-ble 1) were detected in farm ditches channeling thewhile 15 and 24 studies were published in the subsequent

5-yr periods between 1990 and 1994 and between 1995 discharge from vegetable and field crop areas (Wan etal., 1994). Later, Wan et al. (1995a; Table 1) reportedand 1999. Finally, a total of 23 studies came out in the

period of only 3.5 yr between 2000 and the middle of on extensive data on concentrations of endosulfan insoils, ditch water, and sediments (Wan et al., 1995a;2003. The number of times an insecticide was detected

also increased and was 33, 37, 56, and 58 in the respective Table 1) as well as azinphos-methyl and parathion-ethyllosses from cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos L.) bogstime periods, while the number of insecticide com-

pounds that were detected did not show any particular (Wan et al., 1995b), which led to peak levels of 175 and21 �g/L, respectively, in the adjacent surface water.trend, with 21, 16, 24, and 16 different compounds, re-

spectively. Although these numbers refer only to studies Cooper and coworkers at the USDA AgriculturalResearch Service’s National Sedimentation Laboratoryavailable in the open literature, they demonstrate a clear

increase of scientific interest in the topic, probably in the 1970s initiated studies on the effects of agriculturalerosion on aquatic ecosystems in the lower Mississippidriven by the development of modern analytical meth-

ods, such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, River catchment (Cooper, 1987; Cooper and Bacon,1980; Cooper and Knight, 1986; Cooper et al., 1993;gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, or liq-

uid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry and by Dendy, 1983), which they later extended to the detectionof pesticide contamination in various surface water eco-the increasing need for data on pesticide exposure to

assess human and environmental health. systems. Residual concentrations of insecticides such asDDT and toxaphene were reported from fishes, surfaceOn the other hand, the detection of low levels of

pesticides in river water is considerably more difficult water, and sediments (Cooper et al., 1987; Cooper andKnight, 1987). Other studies took place in the Moonthan in many other types of waters. This is illustrated

by results from a large monitoring data set compiled Lake, a 10.1-km2 oxbow lake of the Mississippi River,and measured the current-use insecticides fenvalerateby German drinking-water authorities (Zullei-Seibert,

1990). In relatively easy-to-analyze matrices, such as (0.11 �g/L and 10.8 �g/kg), permethrin (0.13 �g/L), and

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Sum

mar

yof

fiel

dca

sest

udie

son

inse

ctic

ide

cont

amin

atio

nin

surf

ace

wat

ers

due

toag

ricu

ltur

alpr

acti

cepu

blis

hed

sinc

e19

82.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

Ald

icar

b2-

met

hyl-

2-(m

ethy

lthi

o)pr

opio

nald

ehyd

e0.

5–6.

4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

92m

onth

lyU

pper

Jord

anB

asin

,Isr

ael

300

Bar

-Ila

net

al.(

2000

)O

-met

hylc

arba

moy

loxi

me

Ald

icar

b0.

21–2

.84

�g/

Lru

noff

2ev

ent

AD

AS

Ros

emau

nd,U

Kap

prox

.0.3

5W

illia

ms

etal

.(19

95)

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

lS-

(3,4

-dih

ydro

-4-o

xobe

nzo[

d]-[

1,2,

3]-

0.00

1–0.

2�

g/L

leac

hing

(irr

igat

ion)

12w

eekl

yR

oyal

Lak

e,W

ashi

ngto

n6

400

Gru

ber

and

Mun

n(1

998)

tria

zin-

3-yl

met

hyl)

O,O

-dim

ethy

lph

osph

orod

ithi

oate

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

001–

0.01

6�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2060

dIo

anni

naL

ake,

Gre

ece

133

0A

lban

iset

al.(

1986

)A

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

0.00

1–0.

025

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s12

60d

Kal

amas

Riv

er,G

reec

e1

330

Alb

anis

etal

.(19

86)

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

06–1

.0�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

7si

ngle

orch

ard

wet

land

s,O

ntar

io,

appr

ox.5

Har

ris

etal

.(19

98)

Can

ada

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

02–0

.1�

g/L

runo

ff3

even

tB

erg

and

Fra

nsch

oek

Riv

ers,

20–1

50Sc

hulz

(200

3)So

uth

Afr

ica

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

07–0

.38

�g/

Lru

noff

3ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

Afr

ica

92Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01a)

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

06–1

.5�

g/L

runo

ff5

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

and

trib

utar

ies,

92Sc

hulz

(200

1b)

Sout

hA

fric

aA

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

0.39

–0.6

�g/

Lru

noff

5ev

ent

six

Lou

rens

Riv

ersu

bcat

ch-

0.15

–1D

abro

wsk

iet

al.(

2002

a)m

ents

,Sou

thA

fric

aA

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

0.14

–0.8

�g/

Lru

noff

4ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Schu

lzan

dP

eall

(200

1)So

uth

Afr

ica

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

1–7

�g/

Lru

noff

11ev

ent

thre

ees

tuar

ine

site

s,So

uth

10–3

0Sc

ott

etal

.(19

99)

Car

olin

aA

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

0.00

2–21

�g/

Lru

noff

–ev

ent

estu

arin

esi

tes,

Sout

hC

arol

ina

10–1

00F

inle

yet

al.(

1999

)A

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

3.4–

244.

6�

g/kg

SPru

noff

5ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

Afr

ica

92Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01a)

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l21

6–12

47�

g/kg

SPru

noff

2ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

eran

dtr

ibut

arie

s,92

Schu

lz(2

001b

)So

uth

Afr

ica

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l21

.1�

g/kg

SPru

noff

1ev

ent

six

Lou

rens

Riv

ersu

bcat

ch-

0.15

–1D

abro

wsk

iet

al.(

2002

a)m

ents

,Sou

thA

fric

aA

zinp

hos-

met

hyl

0.9–

43.3

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff2

14d

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Schu

lzan

dP

eall

(200

1)So

uth

Afr

ica

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l1.

1–2.

6�

g/L

spra

ydr

ift

6ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Schu

lzet

al.(

2001

b)So

uth

Afr

ica

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

03–0

.05

�g/

Lsp

ray

drif

t3

even

t,co

mpo

site

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

Afr

ica

4Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01b)

Azi

npho

s-m

ethy

l0.

36–0

.87

�g/

Lsp

ray

drif

t5

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

trib

utar

y,0.

15Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01c)

Sout

hA

fric

aC

arba

ryl

1-na

phth

ylm

ethy

lcar

bam

ate

0.07

–0.1

4�

g/L

leac

hing

,run

off

2m

onth

lyse

ven

site

s,P

ajar

oR

iver

appr

ox.1

40H

unt

etal

.(19

99)

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

Car

bary

l0.

1–0.

59�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ceap

prox

.6w

eekl

ySh

inan

oR

iver

,Jap

an11

900

Tan

abe

etal

.(20

01)

fiel

dsC

arab

ryl

0.00

3–0.

2�

g/L

runo

ff–

even

tst

ream

sin

the

U.S

.Mid

wes

t20

0–44

367

0B

atta

glin

and

Fai

rchi

ld(2

002)

Car

bofu

ran

2,3-

dihy

dro-

2,2-

dim

ethy

lben

zofu

ran-

7-yl

0.00

1–0.

042

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s22

60d

Ioan

nina

Lak

e,G

reec

e1

330

Alb

anis

etal

.(19

86)

met

hylc

arba

mat

eC

arbo

fura

n0.

001–

0.01

2�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1260

dK

alam

asR

iver

,Gre

ece

133

0A

lban

iset

al.(

1986

)C

arbo

fura

n4.

8�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1m

onth

lySa

cram

ento

–San

Joaq

uin

4000

0W

erne

ret

al.(

2000

)ca

tchm

ent,

Cal

ifor

nia

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

Car

bofu

ran

0.1–

1.8

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s8

wee

kly,

com

posi

te11

agri

cult

ural

wat

ersh

eds,

40F

rank

etal

.(19

82)

Ont

ario

,Can

ada

Car

bofu

ran

0.02

–49.

4�

g/L

runo

ff4

even

tA

DA

SR

osem

aund

,UK

appr

ox.0

.35

Will

iam

set

al.(

1995

)C

arbo

fura

n0.

003–

1.03

�g/

Lru

noff

–ev

ent

stre

ams

inth

eU

.S.M

idw

est

200–

443

670

Bat

tagl

inan

dF

airc

hild

(200

2)C

hlor

pyri

fos

O,O

-die

thyl

O-3

,5,6

-tri

chlo

ro-2

-pyr

idyl

0.00

4–0.

12�

g/L

leac

hing

(irr

igat

ion)

15w

eekl

yR

oyal

Lak

e,W

ashi

ngto

n6

400

Gru

ber

and

Mun

n(1

998)

phos

phor

othi

oate

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

06–0

.52

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s8

mon

thly

Sacr

amen

to–S

anJo

aqui

nap

prox

.40

000

Wer

ner

etal

.(20

00)

catc

hmen

t,C

alif

orni

aC

hlor

pyri

fos

0.01

–1.6

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s6

wee

kly,

com

posi

te11

agri

cult

ural

wat

ersh

eds,

40F

rank

etal

.(19

82)

Ont

ario

,Can

ada

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

004–

0.86

�g/

Lru

noff

–ev

ent

stre

ams

inth

eU

.S.M

idw

est

200–

443

670

Bat

tagl

inan

dF

airc

hild

(200

2)C

hlor

pyri

fos

0.13

�g/

Lru

noff

114

dW

hite

Riv

er,I

ndia

na29

383

Che

net

al.(

2002

)C

hlor

pyri

fos

0.03

–0.2

�g/

Lru

noff

2ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

eran

dtr

ibut

arie

s,92

Schu

lz(2

001b

)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

01–0

.26

�g/

Lru

noff

17ev

ent

San

Joaq

uin

catc

hmen

t,ap

prox

.16

000

Dom

agal

ski

etal

.(19

97)

Cal

ifor

nia

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

19�

g/L

runo

ff1

even

tsi

xL

oure

nsR

iver

subc

atch

-0.

15–1

Dab

row

ski

etal

.(20

02a)

men

ts,S

outh

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

01–0

.03

�g/

Lru

noff

2ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Schu

lzan

dP

eall

(200

1)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

08–1

.3�

g/L

runo

ff3

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

trib

utar

y,0.

15M

oore

etal

.(20

02)

Sout

hA

fric

aC

hlor

pyri

fos

0.03

–3.2

�g/

Lru

noff

52ev

ent

cree

kch

anne

l,C

alif

orni

aap

prox

.150

Hun

tet

al.(

2003

)C

hlor

pyri

fos

0.02

–3.8

�g/

Lru

noff

78

hSa

ndus

kyR

iver

,OH

324

0R

icha

rds

and

Bak

er(1

993)

Chl

orpy

rifo

s1.

0–2.

1�

g/kg

SPru

noff

724

–48

h,ev

ent

San

Joaq

uin–

Sacr

amen

toap

prox

.40

000

Ber

gam

asch

iet

al.(

2001

)es

tuar

y,C

alif

orni

aC

hlor

pyri

fos

2–34

4.2

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff8

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

,Sou

thA

fric

a92

Schu

lzet

al.(

2001

a)C

hlor

pyri

fos

83–9

24�

g/kg

SPru

noff

2ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

eran

dtr

ibut

arie

s,92

Schu

lz(2

001b

)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s4.

2–15

2�

g/kg

SPru

noff

8ev

ent

six

Lou

rens

Riv

ersu

bcat

ch-

0.15

–1D

abro

wsk

iet

al.(

2002

a)m

ents

,Sou

thA

fric

aC

hlor

pyri

fos

0.2–

31.4

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff2

14d

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Schu

lzan

dP

eall

(200

1)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s69

–720

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff6

even

tB

erg

and

Fra

nsch

oek

Riv

ers,

20–1

50Sc

hulz

(200

3)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s2.

6–89

.4�

g/kg

SPru

noff

3ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

0.15

Moo

reet

al.(

2002

)So

uth

Afr

ica

Chl

orpy

rifo

s0.

2–2.

8�

g/L

runo

ff,a

ssum

ed7

1d

(pea

k)Sa

ndus

kyR

iver

,Ohi

o3

200

Gie

syet

al.(

1999

)C

hlor

pyri

fos

0.67

�g/

Lru

noff

,ass

umed

71

d(p

eak)

Tur

lock

Irri

gati

onD

itch

,ap

prox

.30

Gie

syet

al.(

1999

)C

alif

orni

aC

hlor

pyri

fos

0.05

–0.1

�g/

Lru

noff

,im

preg

-9

seas

onal

Suer

teR

iver

trib

utar

ies,

57C

asti

lloet

al.(

2000

)na

ted

bags

Cos

taR

ica

Cyf

luth

rin

(RS)

-�-c

yano

-4-f

luor

o-3-

phen

oxyb

enzy

l0.

2–5

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s7

daily

Vem

men

hog

subc

atch

men

t,8.

3K

reug

er(1

998)

(1R

S,3R

S;1R

S,3S

R)-

3-(2

,2-d

ichl

orov

inyl

)-so

uthe

rnSw

eden

2,2-

dim

ethy

lcyc

lopr

opan

ecar

boxy

late

Cyp

erm

ethr

in(R

S)-�

-cya

no-3

-phe

noxy

benz

yl(1

RS,

3RS;

0.4–

1.7

�g/

Lsp

ray

drif

t20

even

tex

peri

men

tal

vine

yard

s,ap

prox

.0.1

Cro

ssla

ndet

al.(

1982

)1R

S,3S

R)-

3-(2

,2-d

ichl

orov

inyl

)-F

ranc

e2,

2-di

met

hylc

yclo

prop

anec

arbo

xyla

teC

yper

met

hrin

2.7

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s1

sing

lefi

vest

ream

san

ddi

tche

s,ap

prox

.10

Hou

seet

al.(

1991

)so

uthe

rnU

K

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

DD

T1,

1,1-

tric

hlor

o-2,

2-bi

s(4-

chlo

roph

enyl

)eth

ane

0.13

–1.1

�g/

Lle

achi

ng,r

unof

f7

mon

thly

seve

nsi

tes,

Paj

aro

Riv

erap

prox

.140

Hun

tet

al.(

1999

)es

tuar

y,C

alif

orni

aD

DT

0.01

–0.6

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s12

4m

onth

lyfi

vesi

tes,

Dea

rC

reek

,44

Coo

per

etal

.(19

87)

Mis

siss

ippi

DD

T1.

1–4.

7�

g/kg

SPno

npoi

ntso

urce

s2

sing

leR

iver

Win

drus

hca

tchm

ent,

appr

ox.1

50H

ouse

etal

.(19

92)

sout

hern

UK

DD

T1–

8.5

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s8

seas

onal

four

site

s,V

ella

rR

iver

,3

200

Ram

esh

etal

.(19

91)

sout

hern

Indi

aD

DT

0.6–

62.2

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s5

sing

lefi

vest

ream

san

ddi

tche

s,ap

prox

.10

Hou

seet

al.(

1991

)so

uthe

rnU

KD

DT

0.2

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s1

sing

leR

iver

Win

drus

hca

tchm

ent,

appr

ox.1

50H

ouse

etal

.(19

92)

sout

hern

UK

DD

T0.

01–6

50.8

�g/

kgru

noff

45si

ngle

Moo

nL

ake

catc

hmen

t,16

6C

oope

r(1

991b

)M

issi

ssip

piD

elta

met

hrin

(S)-

�-c

yano

-3-p

heno

xybe

nzyl

(1R

,3R

)-1.

9–37

.5�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

3si

ngle

five

stre

ams

and

ditc

hes,

appr

ox.1

0H

ouse

etal

.(19

91)

3-(2

,2-d

ibro

mov

inyl

)-2,

2-di

met

hyl-

sout

hern

UK

cycl

opro

pane

carb

oxyl

ate

Del

tam

ethr

in0.

08–2

�g/

Lru

noff

3ev

ent

AD

AS

Ros

emau

nd,U

K0.

34T

urnb

ull

etal

.(19

95)

Del

tam

ethr

in1.

4�

g/L

runo

ff1

even

tsi

xL

oure

nsR

iver

subc

atch

-0.

15–1

Dab

row

ski

etal

.(20

02a)

men

ts,S

outh

Afr

ica

Dia

zino

nO

,O-d

ieth

ylO

-2-i

sopr

opyl

-6-m

ethy

lpyr

imid

in-

0.1–

0.32

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

appr

ox.1

5w

eekl

ySh

inan

oR

iver

,Jap

an11

900

Tan

abe

etal

.(20

01)

4-yl

phos

phor

othi

oate

fiel

dsD

iazi

non

0.05

–1.0

6�

g/L

leac

hing

,run

off

7m

onth

lyse

ven

site

s,P

ajar

oR

iver

appr

ox.1

40H

unt

etal

.(19

99)

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

Dia

zino

n0.

001–

0.05

7�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2660

dIo

anni

naL

ake,

Gre

ece

133

0A

lban

iset

al.(

1986

)D

iazi

non

0.00

2–0.

052

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s12

60d

Kal

amas

Riv

er,G

reec

e1

330

Alb

anis

etal

.(19

86)

Dia

zino

n0.

4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1m

onth

lySa

cram

ento

–San

Joaq

uin

appr

ox.4

000

0W

erne

ret

al.(

2000

)ca

tchm

ent,

Cal

ifor

nia

Dia

zino

n0.

1–0.

3�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

3se

ason

alE

doR

iver

,Jap

an20

0K

ikuc

hiet

al.(

1999

)D

iazi

non

0.01

–0.5

1�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

50m

onth

lysi

xfa

rmdi

tche

s,B

riti

shap

prox

.0.5

Wan

etal

.(19

94)

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aD

iazi

non

0.15

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s1

wee

kly,

com

posi

te11

agri

cult

ural

wat

ersh

eds,

40F

rank

etal

.(19

82)

Ont

ario

,Can

ada

Dia

zino

n0.

05–0

.4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

5se

ason

alSa

nJo

aqui

n–Sa

cram

ento

appr

ox.4

000

0D

omag

alsk

ian

dK

uivi

laes

tuar

y,C

alif

orni

a(1

993)

Dia

zino

n0.

02–0

.62

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s7

wee

kly

San

Joaq

uin

catc

hmen

t,ap

prox

.16

000

Dom

agal

ski

etal

.(19

97)

Cal

ifor

nia

Dia

zino

n0.

12–7

�g/

Lru

noff

17ev

ent

San

Joaq

uin

trib

utar

ies,

50–1

00D

omag

alsk

iet

al.(

1997

)C

alif

orni

aD

iazi

non

0.02

–1.0

3�

g/L

runo

ffap

prox

.60

daily

Sacr

amen

to–S

anJo

aqui

nap

prox

.40

000

Kui

vila

and

Foe

(199

5)ca

tchm

ent,

Cal

ifor

nia

Dia

zino

n0.

07–0

.15

�g/

Lru

noff

,im

preg

-7

seas

onal

Suer

teR

iver

trib

utar

ies,

57C

asti

lloet

al.(

2000

)na

ted

bags

Cos

taR

ica

Dia

zino

n0.

1–1.

5�

g/kg

SPno

npoi

ntso

urce

s5

seas

onal

San

Joaq

uin–

Sacr

amen

toap

prox

.40

000

Dom

agal

ski

and

Kui

vila

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

(199

3)D

ichl

orvo

s2,

2-di

chlo

rovi

nyl

dim

ethy

lph

osph

ate

0.1–

0.3

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s8

seas

onal

Tam

aR

iver

,Jap

an1

240

Kik

uchi

etal

.(19

99)

Dic

ofol

2,2,

2-tr

ichl

oro-

1,1-

bis(

4-ch

loro

phen

yl)e

than

ol0.

2–2.

5�

g/L

leac

hing

(irr

igat

ion)

6bi

mon

thly

Ore

stim

baC

reek

,Cal

ifor

nia

appr

ox.2

00D

omag

alsk

i(1

996)

Die

ldri

n(1

R,4

S,4a

S,5R

,6R

,7S,

8S,8

aR)-

1,2,

3,4,

10,1

0-0.

06–0

.26

�g/

Lle

achi

ng,r

unof

f4

mon

thly

seve

nsi

tes,

Paj

aro

Riv

erap

prox

.140

Hun

tet

al.(

1999

)he

xach

loro

-1,4

,4a,

5,6,

7,8,

8a-o

ctah

ydro

-es

tuar

y,C

alif

orni

a6,

7-ep

oxy-

1,4:

5,8-

dim

etha

nona

phth

alen

eD

ield

rin

8–17

�g/

kgSP

nonp

oint

sour

ces

3si

ngle

Riv

erW

indr

ush

catc

hmen

t,ap

prox

.150

Hou

seet

al.(

1992

)so

uthe

rnU

KD

ield

rin

1.0–

6.7

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s4

sing

lefi

vest

ream

san

ddi

tche

s,ap

prox

.10

Hou

seet

al.(

1991

)so

uthe

rnU

K

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

Die

ldri

n0.

2�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2si

ngle

Riv

erW

indr

ush

catc

hmen

t,ap

prox

.150

Hou

seet

al.(

1992

)so

uthe

rnU

KD

imet

hoat

eO

,O-d

imet

hyl

S-m

ethy

lcar

bam

oylm

ethy

l0.

2�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce4

wee

kly

Shin

ano

Riv

er,J

apan

1190

0T

anab

eet

al.(

2001

)ph

osph

orod

ithi

oate

fiel

dsD

imet

hoat

e0.

05–0

.1�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2si

ngle

San

Joaq

uin

Riv

eran

d10

0–5

000

Per

eira

etal

.(19

96)

trib

utar

ies,

Cal

ifor

nia

Dim

etho

ate

0.1–

30�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

7da

ilyV

emm

enho

gsu

bcat

chm

ent,

8.3

Kre

uger

(199

8)so

uthe

rnSw

eden

Dim

etho

ate

0.01

–11.

6�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

34m

onth

lysi

xfa

rmdi

tche

s,B

riti

shap

prox

.0.5

Wan

etal

.(19

94)

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aD

isul

foto

nO

,O-d

ieth

ylS-

2-et

hylt

hioe

thyl

phos

phor

o-0.

1–0.

4�

g/L

runo

ff8

even

tSh

ell

Cre

ek,N

ebra

ska

700

Spal

ding

and

Snow

(198

9)di

thio

ate

End

osul

fan

6,7,

8,9,

10,1

0-he

xach

loro

-1,5

,5a,

6,9,

9a-

0.05

–0.5

3�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

3si

ngle

orch

ard

wet

land

s,O

ntar

io,

appr

ox.5

Har

ris

etal

.(19

98)

hexa

hydr

o-6,

9-m

etha

no-2

,4,3

-C

anad

abe

nzod

ioxa

thie

pine

3-ox

ide

End

osul

fan

0.06

–0.7

5�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

18m

onth

ly27

agri

cult

ural

chan

nel

site

s,40

0M

iles

and

Pfe

uffe

r(1

997)

sout

hern

Flo

rida

End

osul

fan

0.01

–0.1

7�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

365

wee

kly,

com

posi

te11

agri

cult

ural

wat

ersh

eds,

40F

rank

etal

.(19

82)

Ont

ario

,Can

ada

End

osul

fan

0.1

�g/

L(m

axim

um)

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1m

onth

lyup

to29

stre

ams,

sout

hern

2–50

0K

reug

eran

dB

rink

(198

8)Sw

eden

End

osul

fan

0.01

–13.

4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

61pe

riod

icse

ven

site

s,fa

rmdi

tche

s,1–

12W

anet

al.(

1995

a)B

riti

shC

olum

bia,

Can

ada

End

osul

fan

153

0�

g/L

spra

ydr

ift

1ev

ent

seve

nfa

rmdi

tche

s,B

riti

shap

prox

.10

Wan

(198

9)C

olum

bia,

Can

ada

End

osul

fan

0.03

–0.1

6�

g/L

runo

ff7

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

,Sou

thA

fric

a92

Schu

lzet

al.(

2001

a)E

ndos

ulfa

n0.

06–2

.9�

g/L

runo

ff5

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

and

trib

utar

ies,

92Sc

hulz

(200

1b)

Sout

hA

fric

aE

ndos

ulfa

n4

�g/

Lru

noff

1ev

ent

Gw

ydir

Riv

er,s

outh

east

ern

appr

ox.1

000

0M

usch

al(1

998)

Aus

tral

iaE

ndos

ulfa

n0.

11–2

.0�

g/L

runo

ff4

even

t21

1ru

ral

pond

s,O

ntar

io,

10–8

0F

rank

etal

.(19

90)

Can

ada

End

osul

fan

0.01

–0.8

5�

g/L

runo

ff35

even

tth

ree

estu

arin

esi

tes,

Sout

h10

–30

Scot

tet

al.(

1999

)C

arol

ina

End

osul

fan

1.44

�g/

Lru

noff

1ev

ent

Ada

ms

Cre

ek,S

outh

Car

olin

aap

prox

.15

Ros

set

al.(

1996

)E

ndos

ulfa

n0.

06–0

.32

�g/

Lru

noff

10ev

ent

six

Lou

rens

Riv

ersu

bcat

ch-

0.15

–1D

abro

wsk

iet

al.(

2002

a)m

ents

,Sou

thA

fric

aE

ndos

ulfa

n0.

07–0

.2�

g/L

runo

ff2

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

trib

utar

y,0.

15Sc

hulz

and

Pea

ll(2

001)

Sout

hA

fric

aE

ndos

ulfa

n17

.7–2

4.6

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff2

24–4

8h,

even

tSa

nJo

aqui

n–Sa

cram

ento

appr

ox.4

000

0B

erga

mas

chi

etal

.(20

01)

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

End

osul

fan

3.9–

245.

3�

g/kg

SPru

noff

6ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

Afr

ica

92Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01a)

End

osul

fan

179–

1208

2�

g/kg

runo

ff2

even

tL

oure

nsR

iver

and

trib

utar

ies,

92Sc

hulz

(200

1b)

SPSo

uth

Afr

ica

End

osul

fan

9.7–

273

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff8

even

tsi

xL

oure

nsR

iver

subc

atch

-0.

15–1

Dab

row

ski

etal

.(20

02a)

men

ts,S

outh

Afr

ica

End

osul

fan

4.6–

156

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff6

even

tB

erg

and

Fra

nsch

oek

Riv

ers,

20–1

50Sc

hulz

(200

3)So

uth

Afr

ica

End

osul

fan

10–3

18�

g/kg

SPno

npoi

ntso

urce

s4

even

ttw

oru

ral

rive

rs,A

rgen

tina

50–1

00Je

rgen

tzet

al.(

2004

)E

ndos

ulfa

n33

4–92

6�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

5pe

riod

icse

ven

farm

ditc

hsi

tes,

Bri

tish

appr

ox.1

0W

an(1

989)

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aE

ndos

ulfa

n5–

246

1�

g/kg

runo

ff47

peri

odic

seve

nsi

tes,

farm

ditc

hes,

1–12

Wan

etal

.(19

95a)

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aE

ndos

ulfa

n3–

48�

g/kg

runo

ff3

even

tN

amoi

Riv

eran

dtr

ibut

ary,

appr

ox.5

000

Leo

nard

etal

.(20

01)

sout

heas

tern

Aus

tral

iaE

ndos

ulfa

n8.

5–12

.3�

g/L

spra

ydr

ift

3ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

ertr

ibut

ary,

appr

ox.0

.5Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01b)

Sout

hA

fric

a

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

End

osul

fan

0.04

–0.1

�g/

Lsp

ray

drif

t3

even

t,co

mpo

site

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

Afr

ica

4Sc

hulz

etal

.(20

01b)

End

osul

fan

�an

d�

1.5–

69.4

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s3

sing

leor

char

dw

etla

nds,

Ont

ario

,ap

prox

.5H

arri

set

al.(

1998

)C

anad

aE

thio

nO

,O,O

�,O�-

tetr

aeth

ylS,

S�-m

ethy

lene

0.01

–0.0

4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

4w

eekl

y,co

mpo

site

11ag

ricu

ltur

alw

ater

shed

s,40

Fra

nket

al.(

1982

)bi

s(ph

osph

orod

ithi

oate

)O

ntar

io,C

anad

aF

enit

roth

ion

O,O

-dim

ethy

lO

-4-n

itro

-m-t

olyl

phos

-0.

2–0.

4�

g/L

aeri

alap

plic

atio

n7

14d

Riv

erO

noga

wa,

Japa

n15

0T

akam

ura

(199

6)ph

orot

hioa

teF

enit

roth

ion

0.1–

1.7

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

appr

ox.2

2w

eekl

ySh

inan

oR

iver

,Jap

an11

900

Tan

abe

etal

.(20

01)

fiel

dsF

enit

roth

ion

0.1–

80�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce5

daily

,wee

kly

Ono

Riv

er,J

apan

appr

ox.8

0H

atak

eyam

aet

al.(

1991

)fi

elds

Fen

itro

thio

n0.

1–0.

2�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

8se

ason

alT

ama

Riv

er,J

apan

124

0K

ikuc

hiet

al.(

1999

)F

enit

roth

ion

0.1

�g/

L(m

axim

um)

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2m

onth

lyup

to29

stre

ams,

sout

hern

2–50

0K

reug

eran

dB

rink

(198

8)Sw

eden

Fen

obuc

arb

2-se

c-bu

tylp

heny

lm

ethy

lcar

bam

ate

0.2–

1.5

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

1114

dR

iver

Ono

gaw

a,Ja

pan

150

Tak

amur

a(1

996)

Fen

obuc

arb

3.9–

22.4

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nin

rice

–ev

ent

Kaj

inas

hiR

iver

,Jap

an80

Tad

aan

dSh

irai

shi

(199

4)fi

elds

Fen

obuc

arb

0.1–

1.3

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

appr

ox.3

0w

eekl

ySh

inan

oR

iver

,Jap

an11

900

Tan

abe

etal

.(20

01)

fiel

dsF

enob

ucar

b15

.6–3

6.1

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

3se

ason

alsu

bcat

chm

ent

ofR

iver

Koi

se,

4–12

Iwak

uma

etal

.(19

93)

fiel

dsJa

pan

Fen

obuc

arb

0.1–

4�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce8

14d

Saw

ato

Riv

er,J

apan

6T

akam

ura

etal

.(19

91b)

fiel

dsF

ensu

lfot

hion

O,O

-die

thyl

O-4

-met

hyls

ulfi

nylp

heny

l10

.3�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

2pe

riod

icse

ven

farm

ditc

hsi

tes,

Bri

tish

appr

ox.1

0W

an(1

989)

phos

phor

othi

oate

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aF

enth

ion

O,O

-dim

ethy

l-O

-4-m

ethy

lthi

o-m

-tol

yl0.

5–50

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

12ev

ent

Suna

Riv

er,J

apan

80H

atak

eyam

aan

dph

osph

orot

hioa

teY

okoy

ama

(199

7)F

enth

ion

0.2

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

814

dR

iver

Ono

gaw

a,Ja

pan

150

Tak

amur

a(1

996)

Fen

thio

n0.

05–6

5�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce13

daily

,wee

kly

Biz

enR

iver

,Jap

anap

prox

.80

Hat

akey

ama

etal

.(19

91)

fiel

dsF

enva

lera

te(R

S)-�

-cya

no-3

-phe

noxy

benz

yl(R

S)-2

-0.

2–6.

2�

g/L

runo

ff7

even

tO

heba

ch,n

orth

ern

Ger

man

y1

Lie

sset

al.(

1999

)(4

-chl

orop

heny

l)-3

-met

hylb

utyr

ate

Fen

vale

rate

0.01

–0.1

1�

g/L

runo

ff9

biw

eekl

yM

oon

Lak

eca

tchm

ent,

166

Coo

per

(199

1b)

Mis

siss

ippi

Fen

vale

rate

0.11

�g/

Lru

noff

1ev

ent

Lea

denw

ahC

reek

,Sou

thap

prox

.200

0B

augh

man

etal

.(19

89)

Car

olin

aF

enva

lera

te0.

02–0

.9�

g/L

runo

ff18

even

tth

ree

estu

arin

esi

tes,

Sout

h10

–30

Scot

tet

al.(

1999

)C

arol

ina

Fen

vale

rate

302

�g/

kgru

noff

1ev

ent

Ohe

bach

,nor

ther

nG

erm

any

1L

iess

etal

.(19

99)

Fen

vale

rate

20–7

0�

g/kg

SPno

npoi

ntso

urce

s3

seas

onal

Vem

men

hog

catc

hmen

t,9

Kre

uger

etal

.(19

99)

sout

hern

Swed

enF

enva

lera

te10

–80

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s3

seas

onal

Vem

men

hog

catc

hmen

t,9

Kre

uger

etal

.(19

99)

sout

hern

Swed

enF

enva

lera

te0.

6–3.

6�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

5si

ngle

five

stre

ams

and

ditc

hes,

appr

ox.1

0H

ouse

etal

.(19

91)

sout

hern

UK

Fen

vale

rate

0.7–

10.8

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s5

sing

leM

oon

Lak

eca

tchm

ent,

166

Coo

per

(199

1a)

Mis

siss

ippi

Fen

vale

rate

33–7

1.3

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff2

14d

Ohe

bach

,nor

ther

nG

erm

any

1L

iess

etal

.(19

96)

Fen

vale

rate

1.0–

10�

g/kg

runo

ff3

even

tO

heba

ch,n

orth

ern

Ger

man

y1

Lie

sset

al.(

1999

)F

ipro

nil

(�)-

5-am

ino-

1-(2

,6-d

ichl

oro-

�,�

,�-(

trif

luor

o-9.

1�

g/L

rice

seed

coat

ing

1si

ngle

Ric

efa

rms,

Mis

siss

ippi

appr

ox.5

0Sc

hlen

ket

al.(

2001

)p-

toly

l)-4

-tri

fluo

rom

ethy

l-su

lfin

ylpy

razo

le-

3-ca

rbon

itri

le

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

Fip

roni

l5.

5�

g/kg

rice

seed

coat

ing

1si

ngle

Ric

efa

rms,

Mis

siss

ippi

appr

ox.5

0Sc

hlen

ket

al.(

2001

)F

onof

osO

-eth

ylS-

phen

yl(R

S)-e

thyl

phos

pho-

0.32

�g/

Lru

noff

114

dW

hite

Riv

er,I

ndia

na29

383

Che

net

al.(

2002

)no

dith

ioat

eF

onof

os0.

01–1

1.9

�g/

Lru

noff

898

hL

ost

Cre

ek,O

H11

.3R

icha

rds

and

Bak

er(1

993)

Lin

dane

1,2,

3,4,

5,6-

hexa

chlo

rocy

cloh

exan

e(m

ixed

0.1–

4.9

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s4

mon

thly

Rec

onqu

ista

Riv

er,A

rgen

tina

167

0R

oved

atti

etal

.(20

01)

isom

ers)

Lin

dane

0.1

�g/

L(a

vera

ge)

nonp

oint

sour

ces

104

seas

onal

Keo

lade

ow

etla

nd,I

ndia

appr

ox.3

0M

ural

idha

ran

(200

0)L

inda

ne0.

6�

g/L

(max

imum

)no

npoi

ntso

urce

s8

mon

thly

upto

29st

ream

s,so

uthe

rn2–

500

Kre

uger

and

Bri

nk(1

988)

Swed

enL

inda

ne0.

03–0

.8�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

7m

onth

lyR

iver

Gra

nta

catc

hmen

t,U

K16

0G

omm

eet

al.(

1991

)L

inda

ne1.

4–52

.2�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

10si

ngle

10si

tes,

Red

Riv

er,V

ietn

am�

500

0A

met

al.(

1995

)L

inda

ne0.

1–1

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s7

sing

lefi

vest

ream

san

ddi

tche

s,ap

prox

.10

Hou

seet

al.(

1991

)so

uthe

rnU

KL

inda

ne1.

1–11

.5�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

48m

onth

lyfo

ursi

tes,

nort

hern

Fra

nce

–G

ueun

ean

dW

inne

tt(1

995)

Lin

dane

0.2–

15.1

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff18

14d

Ohe

bach

,nor

ther

nG

erm

any

1L

iess

etal

.(19

99)

Lin

dane

3.7–

52.8

�g/

kgru

noff

3si

ngle

pond

s,O

ntar

io,C

anad

aap

prox

.5B

isho

pet

al.(

2000

)M

alat

hion

diet

hyl(

dim

etho

xyth

ioph

osph

oryl

thio

)suc

cina

te0.

1–3

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

1114

dSa

wat

oR

iver

,Jap

an6

Tak

amur

aet

al.(

1991

b)fi

elds

Mal

athi

on0.

26–0

.69

�g/

Lap

plic

atio

nto

rice

3m

onth

lySu

naga

wa

Riv

ersy

stem

,Jap

anap

prox

.50

Tak

amur

aet

al.(

1991

a)fi

elds

Met

hida

thio

nS-

2,3-

dihy

dro-

5-m

etho

xy-2

-oxo

-1,3

,4-

0.03

–9.2

�g/

Lru

noff

6ev

ent

San

Joaq

uin

trib

utar

ies,

50–1

00D

omag

alsk

iet

al.(

1997

)th

iadi

azol

-3-y

lmet

hyl

O,O

-dim

ethy

lC

alif

orni

aph

osph

orod

ithi

oate

Met

hida

thio

n0.

01–0

.6�

g/L

runo

ffap

prox

.60

daily

Sacr

amen

to–S

anJo

aqui

nap

prox

.40

000

Kui

vila

and

Foe

(199

5)ca

tchm

ent,

Cal

ifor

nia

Oxa

myl

N,N

-dim

ethy

l-2-

met

hylc

arba

moy

loxy

imin

o-0.

4–0.

6�

g/L

leac

hing

,run

off

3m

onth

lyse

ven

site

s,P

ajar

oR

iver

appr

ox.1

40H

unt

etal

.(19

99)

2-(m

ethy

lthi

o)ac

etam

ide

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

Oxy

dem

eton

-S-

2-et

hyls

ulfi

nyle

thyl

O,O

-dim

ethy

l1–

63�

g/L

aeri

alap

plic

atio

n10

even

ttw

ovi

neya

rdca

tchm

ents

,0.

1–1.

5A

ufse

ßet

al.(

1989

)m

ethy

lph

osph

orot

hioa

teso

uthw

este

rnG

erm

any

Par

athi

on-e

thyl

O,O

-die

thyl

O-4

-nit

roph

enyl

phos

phor

o-0.

06–0

.4�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

4m

onth

lysi

xfa

rmdi

tche

s,B

riti

shap

prox

.0.5

Wan

etal

.(19

94)

thio

ate

Col

umbi

a,C

anad

aP

arat

hion

-eth

yl0.

3–83

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

8ev

ent

two

vine

yard

catc

hmen

ts,

0.1–

1.5

Auf

seß

etal

.(19

89)

sout

hwes

tern

Ger

man

yP

arat

hion

-eth

yl3.

3–13

�g/

kgSP

nonp

oint

sour

ces

3si

ngle

Riv

erW

indr

ush

catc

hmen

t,ap

prox

.150

Hou

seet

al.(

1992

)so

uthe

rnU

KP

arat

hion

-eth

yl0.

3–1

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s3

sing

leR

iver

Win

drus

hca

tchm

ent,

appr

ox.1

50H

ouse

etal

.(19

92)

sout

hern

UK

Par

athi

on-e

thyl

0.04

–6�

g/L

runo

ff10

even

tO

heba

ch,n

orth

ern

Ger

man

y1

Lie

sset

al.(

1999

)P

arat

hion

-eth

yl0.

05–5

0.8

�g/

kgSP

runo

ff18

14d

Ohe

bach

,nor

ther

nG

erm

any

1L

iess

etal

.(19

96)

Par

athi

on-e

thyl

1.0–

8.7

�g/

kgru

noff

3ev

ent

Ohe

bach

,nor

ther

nG

erm

any

1L

iess

etal

.(19

99)

Par

athi

on-

O,O

-dim

ethy

lO

-4-n

itro

phen

ylph

osph

oro-

0.00

1–0.

012

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s16

60d

Ioan

nina

Lak

e,G

reec

e1

330

Alb

anis

etal

.(19

86)

met

hyl

thio

ate

Par

athi

on-

0.00

2–0.

032

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s9

60d

Kal

amas

Riv

er,G

reec

e1

330

Alb

anis

etal

.(19

86)

met

hyl

Par

athi

on-

0.4–

213

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

10ev

ent

two

vine

yard

catc

hmen

ts,

0.1–

1.5

Auf

seß

etal

.(19

89)

met

hyl

sout

hwes

tern

Ger

man

yP

arat

hion

-0.

01–0

.49

�g/

Lru

noff

7bi

wee

kly

Moo

nL

ake

catc

hmen

t,16

6C

oope

r(1

991b

)m

ethy

lM

issi

ssip

pi

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Num

ber

ofC

atch

men

tSu

bsta

nce

Che

mic

alna

me

Con

cent

rati

on†

Sour

cede

tect

ions

Sam

plin

gin

terv

alL

ocat

ion

size

Ref

eren

ce

km2

Per

met

hrin

3-ph

enox

yben

zyl

(1R

S,3R

S;1R

S,3S

R)-

3-0.

6�

g/L

Max

imum

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1m

onth

lyup

to29

stre

ams,

sout

hern

2–50

0K

reug

eran

dB

rink

(198

8)(2

,2di

chlo

rovi

nyl)

-2,2

-di

met

hylc

yclo

-Sw

eden

prop

anec

arbo

xyla

teP

erm

ethr

in0.

01–0

.13

�g/

Lru

noff

2bi

wee

kly

Moo

nL

ake

catc

hmen

t,16

6C

oope

r(1

991b

)M

issi

ssip

piP

erm

ethr

in0.

5–1.

6�

g/L

runo

ff–

even

tSo

uth

Riv

erco

asta

lar

ea,

20–5

0K

irby

-Sm

ith

etal

.(19

92)

(wat

er�

Nor

thC

arol

ina

part

icle

s)P

erm

ethr

in2

�g/

kgSP

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1se

ason

alV

emm

enho

gca

tchm

ent,

9K

reug

eret

al.(

1999

)so

uthe

rnSw

eden

Per

met

hrin

1–3

�g/

kgno

npoi

ntso

urce

s3

seas

onal

Vem

men

hog

catc

hmen

t,9

Kre

uger

etal

.(19

99)

sout

hern

Swed

enP

erm

ethr

in0.

5–16

3�

g/kg

core

sno

npoi

ntso

urce

s5

sing

leW

hite

wat

erR

iver

,sou

ther

n35

6D

anie

lset

al.(

2000

)U

KP

erm

ethr

in-t

rans

18�

g/kg

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1si

ngle

five

stre

ams

and

ditc

hes,

appr

ox.1

0H

ouse

etal

.(19

91)

sout

hern

UK

Pir

imic

arb

2-di

met

hyla

min

o-5,

6-di

met

hylp

yrim

idin

-4-y

l0.

48�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

1si

ngle

orch

ard

wet

land

s,O

ntar

io,

appr

ox.5

Har

ris

etal

.(19

98)

dim

ethy

lcar

bam

ate

Can

ada

Pir

imic

arb

0.1–

10�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

61da

ilyV

emm

enho

gsu

bcat

chm

ent,

8.3

Kre

uger

(199

8)so

uthe

rnSw

eden

Pir

imic

arb

3.7

�g/

L(m

axim

um)

nonp

oint

sour

ces

5m

onth

lyup

to29

stre

ams,

sout

hern

2–50

0K

reug

eran

dB

rink

(198

8)Sw

eden

Pir

imic

arb

0.2–

1�

g/L

runo

ff5

daily

Vem

men

hog

catc

hmen

t,9

Kre

uger

(199

5)so

uthe

rnSw

eden

Pir

mic

arb

27.3

�g/

Lno

npoi

ntso

urce

s1

even

tR

iedg

rabe

n,so

uthe

rn6

Schl

icht

iget

al.(

2001

)G

erm

any

Pro

thio

fos

O-2

,4-d

ichl

orop

heny

lO

-eth

ylS-

prop

yl0.

04–0

.16

�g/

Lru

noff

2ev

ent

Fra

nsch

oek

Riv

er,S

outh

20Sc

hulz

(200

3)ph

osph

orod

ithi

oate

Afr

ica

Pro

thio

fos

15–9

80�

g/kg

SPru

noff

2ev

ent

Lou

rens

Riv

eran

dtr

ibut

arie

s,92

Schu

lz(2

001b

)So

uth

Afr

ica

Pro

thio

fos

0.5–

6�

g/kg

SPru

noff

214

dL

oure

nsR

iver

trib

utar

y,0.

15Sc

hulz

and

Pea

ll(2

001)

Sout

hA

fric

aP

yrid

afen

thio

nO

-(1,

6-di

hydr

o-6-

oxo-

1-ph

enyl

pyri

dazi

n-3-

yl)

0.1–

2�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

14se

ason

alN

aka

Riv

er,J

apan

991

Kik

uchi

etal

.(19

99)

O,O

-die

thyl

phos

phor

othi

oate

Ter

bufo

sS-

tert

-but

ylth

iom

ethy

lO

,O-d

ieth

ylph

os-

0.01

3–0.

048

�g/

Lru

noff

–ev

ent

stre

ams

inth

eU

.S.M

idw

est

200–

443

670

Bat

tagl

inan

dF

airc

hild

phor

odit

hioa

te(2

002)

Ter

bufo

s0.

01–0

.3�

g/L

runo

ff–

even

tE

stua

rine

wet

land

s,N

orth

20–5

0K

irby

-Sm

ith

etal

.(19

92)

Car

olin

aT

hiob

enca

rbS-

4-ch

loro

benz

yldi

ethy

lthi

ocar

bam

ate

0.2–

8�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce4

14d

Saw

ato

Riv

er,J

apan

6T

akam

ura

etal

.(19

91b)

fiel

dsT

hiob

enca

rb2.

56�

g/L

appl

icat

ion

tori

ce1

mon

thly

Suna

gaw

aR

iver

syst

em,

appr

ox.5

0T

akam

ura

etal

.(19

91a)

fiel

dsJa

pan

Tox

aphe

ne2,

2-di

met

hyl-

3-m

ethy

lenn

orbo

rnan

e2.

4–3.

9�

g/L

leac

hing

,run

off

2m

onth

lyse

ven

site

s,P

ajar

oR

iver

appr

ox.1

40H

unt

etal

.(19

99)

estu

ary,

Cal

ifor

nia

Tox

aphe

ne0.

01–1

.2�

g/L

nonp

oint

sour

ces

60m

onth

lyfi

vesi

tes,

Dea

rC

reek

,44

Coo

per

etal

.(19

87)

Mis

siss

ippi

Tri

chlo

rfon

dim

ethy

l2,

2,2-

tric

hlor

o-1-

hydr

oxye

thyl

-6–

182

�g/

Lae

rial

appl

icat

ion

18ev

ent

two

vine

yard

catc

hmen

ts,

0.1–

1.5

Auf

seß

etal

.(19

89)

phos

phon

ate

sout

hwes

tern

Ger

man

y

†If

not

men

tion

edot

herw

ise,

the

conc

entr

atio

nsgi

ven

refe

rto

the

sum

ofal

lis

omer

s.SP

,sus

pend

edpa

rtic

les.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


parathion-methyl (0.49 �g/L) originating from cotton dieldrin, DDT, and parathion-ethyl (House et al., 1992),while more recent papers from this group have reported(Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.)

Merr.], and rice (Oryza sativa L.) farming, which were permethrin in sediment cores (Daniels et al., 2000) orconcentrated on other insecticide sources, such as thefound sporadically in water and sediments and in 26%

of the fish samples (Cooper, 1991a, 1991b). Along with textile industry (House et al., 2000). An extensive studyof pesticide transport was conducted at the Agriculturalresults from South Carolina estuarine waters (Baugh-

man et al., 1989), these are probably among the first Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) farm atRosemaund, UK between 1990 and 1992. A total of 59studies from the United States detecting pyrethroids in

field samples (Table 1). Much of this work was later rainfall–pesticide–location combinations were moni-tored, during which several herbicides and the insecti-reviewed and summarized in various papers (Cooper,

1990; Cooper and Lipe, 1992; Schreiber et al., 1996; cide carbofuran were detected at concentrations up to49.4 �g/L (Table 1; Williams et al., 1995).Smith et al., 1995). A very early example of the variation

of pesticide contents during a spring discharge event In various investigations the rice insecticides carbaryl,diazinon, dimethoate, fenthion, and pyridafenthionwas documented for Shell Creek in Nebraska by Spal-

ding and Snow (1989). Based on nine different herbi- were found at levels of �1 �g/L in surface water samplesfrom Japan (Table 1). Additionally, fenobucarb, fen-cides and the insecticide disulfoton, this study indicated

that the pesticide levels peak before the peak in stream ithrothion, fenthion, malathion, and thiobencarb werereported at higher levels of 36.1, 1.7, 50, 3.0, and 8.0discharge.

Between 1985 and 1987, Kreuger and Brink (1988) �g/L, respectively (Hatakeyama and Yokoyama, 1997;Iwakuma et al., 1993; Kikuchi et al., 1999; Tada andconducted a pesticide monitoring program in up to 29

streams with varying catchment sizes in southern Sweden. Hatakeyama, 2000; Tada and Shiraishi, 1994; Takamura,1996; Takamura et al., 1991b; Tanabe et al., 2001). AThe organochlorines endosulfan and lindane, the organo-

phosphate fenitrothion, the pyrethroid permethrin, and small headwater stream situated in a intensively cropped(winter wheat, sugar beet) area in northern Germanythe carbamate insecticide pirimicarb were detected at

maximum levels of 0.1, 0.6, 0.1, 0.6, and 3.7 �g/L, respec- was monitored using various sampling techniques todetect insecticides in runoff water, stream water, andtively (Table 1). As surface water was estimated to sup-

ply 50% of the Swedish drinking water, there was great suspended particles during runoff events (Liess et al.,1996; Schulz et al., 1998). Transient peak contaminationsconcern about nonpoint-source pollution of this impor-

tant resource. Follow-up studies focused on streams and of fenvalerate (6.2 �g/L and 302 �g/kg in suspendedparticles) and parathion-ethyl (6.0 �g/L and 50.8 �g/kgponds in the Vemmenhog catchment in southern Sweden,

which is dominated by winter rape (Brassica napus L.), in suspended particles) were measured during runoffevents between 1992 and 1995 (Liess et al., 1999).winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), sugar beet (Beta

vulgaris L.), and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Surface waters in orchard-dominated areas of theCentral Valley in California, USA were studied for in-They detected cyfluthrin, dimethoate, pirimicarb, and

permethrin in water samples as well as permethrin and secticide input and transport from smaller subcatch-ments via the San Joaquin and Sacramento Riverfenvalerate in sediments and suspended particles, re-

spectively (Kreuger, 1995, 1998; Kreuger et al., 1999). through to the San Francisco Bay. Initial studies focusedon diazinon, methidathion, and DDT (Domagalski andThese investigations suggested a correlation between

amounts used in the catchment and occurrence in water Kuivila, 1993; Kuivila and Foe, 1995). Selected stormevents monitored by Domagalski et al. (1997) as part ofsamples and reported a decrease of overall detections

between 1990 and 1996. However, concentrations of the National Water Quality Assessment program wereshown to result in levels of 0.26 �g/L chlorpyrifos, 7 �g/Lcyfluthrin, dimethoate, and pirimicarb were transiently

above levels demonstrated as having an effect on the diazinon, and 9.2 �g/L methidathion in small headwaterstreams (Table 1). Another study using a surface wateraquatic fauna (Kreuger, 1998).

Scott and coworkers conducted extensive field studies monitoring network suggested that the western valleywas the principal source of pesticides to the San Joaquinin an area of repeated fish kills (Scott et al., 1987; Trim

and Marcus, 1990) related to pesticides used on vegeta- River during the irrigation season (Domagalski, 1997).More recent studies emphasized either the toxicity ofble crops adjacent to estuarine marshes in South Caro-

lina (Scott et al., 1989). An early study linked runoff- insecticide input events (e.g., 4.8 �g/L chlorpyrifos) towater flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (Amphipoda) (Wernerrelated fenvalerate levels up to 0.11 �g/L to in situ

toxicity, using shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) (Baughman et al., 2000) or the residues of insecticides, such as chlor-pyrifos (2.1 �g/kg) and endosulfan (24.6 �g/kg), in sus-et al., 1989). Peak field exposures measured betweenpended particles (Bergamaschi et al., 2001).1985 and 1990 reached 0.85 �g/L for endosulfan, 0.9

Another fruit orchard area has been observed for�g/L for fenvalerate, and 7 �g/L for azinphos-methylcurrent-use insecticides since 1998 in the Western Cape(Finley et al., 1999; Ross et al., 1996; Scott et al., 1999).of South Africa. High peak concentrations of azinphos-House et al. (1991) were able to detect the pyrethroidsmethyl (1.5 �g/L and 1247 �g/kg), chlorpyrifos (0.2 �g/Lcypermethrin, deltamethrin, and permethrin (trans iso-and 924 �g/kg), endosulfan (2.9 �g/L and 12082 �g/kg),mer) at levels up to 2.7, 37.5, and 18 �g/kg, respectively,and prothiofos (980 �g/kg) were detected in water andin sediments of ditches, streams, and drainage channelssuspended particles of the Lourens River (Table 1) inin the southern UK (Table 1). Another study focusingassociation with a single storm runoff event during theon suspended particles reported considerable levels of

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


spraying season (Schulz, 2001b). The first rainfall events suspended particles (House et al., 1992). In other stud-of the wet season, occurring about 2 to 3 mo following ies, fenvalerate and parathion-ethyl reached 71.3 andthe last pesticide application, transported mainly parti- 8.7 �g/kg in sediments and 302 and 50.8 �g/kg, respec-cle-associated insecticides (Table 1) via the tributaries tively, in suspended particles (Liess et al., 1996, 1999).into the Lourens River (Dabrowski et al., 2002a; Schulz However, the distribution of a chemical between sedi-et al., 2001a). Spray drift was identified as another route ment and suspended particles is dependent on numerousof insecticide input, although relatively high levels were factors, such as the route of entry into the system anddetected mainly in the affected tributaries (Schulz et the time between input and sampling. Kreuger et al.al., 2001b). The monitoring data were recently com- (1999) found no clear difference in concentrations be-pared with predictions using basic drift data and a runoff tween suspended particles and sediments for the pyre-formula suggested by the Organisation for Economic throids permethrin and fenvalerate.Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (Dabrowski A study undertaken by Kreuger and Brink (1988) onet al., 2002b; Dabrowski and Schulz, 2003). It was dem- running waters draining catchments of different sizes inonstrated that runoff is a more important route of pesti- a localized area in southern Sweden suggested highercide entry than spray drift, producing higher insecticide pesticide concentrations in smaller catchments (�100concentrations and loads in the Lourens River (Da- km2) than in larger ones. However, this result was mainlybrowski and Schulz, 2003; Schulz, 2001a). derived from herbicide data, as this group of pesticides

Some of the insecticides listed more frequently in was most often detected in the various catchments. ToTable 1 (e.g., chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, diazinon) analyze for a relationship applicable to insecticides, allare among the most heavily used insecticides in the insecticide data derived from water samples that areUSA (National Center for Food and Agricultural Pol- contained in Table 1 were correlated with the averageicy, 1997). However, very little field data exists for catchment-size information also included in Table 1.aquatic concentrations of other chemicals that are ap- The result was that the log-transformed maximum insec-plied in relatively high total amounts in the USA, such ticide concentration is negatively correlated (with a sig-as aldicarb, malathion, or carbaryl. However, the mere nificance of p � 0.0025) with the log-transformed catch-fact that some chemicals have been studied more fre- ment size (Fig. 1). All 19 detections of a single insecticidequently than other compounds, or are used intensively concentration of �10 �g/L were obtained in surfacein agriculture, by no means justifies a suspicion that water with a catchment size below 100 km2, indicatingthese chemicals pose a greater threat to aquatic eco- the importance of catchment size. Thirteen of these 19systems. detections of �10 �g/L were obtained in surface water

In particular, the earlier exposure studies covered in with a catchment size below 10 km2. This is of particularthis review did not further specify the routes of non- importance with regard to the European Water Frame-point-source insecticide entry. In total, 27 studies men- work Directive (European Union, 2000), which cur-tioned in Table 1 simply assume agricultural nonpoint rently only covers �10-km2 catchments. This importantsources as the route of entry, of which 20 refer to the directive thus generally excludes aquatic habitats thatperiod before 1999. Runoff represents by far the most are potentially at the highest risk of being negativelyimportant specified source of insecticide entry, having affected by high insecticide concentrations.received increased attention during the past few years It is also interesting to note that 12 of these 19 detec-as indicated by the high proportion of studies (15 out of tions of extremely high concentrations (�10 �g/L) re-23) published since 2000. Interestingly, only four studies sulted from an event-triggered sampling program. Thisspecify spray drift as the route of entry of insecticides is not surprising; insecticides originating from nonpoint(azinphos-methyl, cypermethrin, endosulfan) detected

sources are present for only brief periods in small head-in surface waters, two of them done in the 1980s andwater environments and detection would not be possiblethe other two in 2001. This lack of field data is surprisingwithout using event-controlled sampling (Liess andin view of the importance of spray drift as an exposureSchulz, 2000). Insecticide contents in sediments or sus-scenario in the regulatory risk assessment scheme ofpended particles as represented by the studies in Table 1many countries (Aquatic Effects Dialogue Group, 1992;did not correlate significantly with catchment size, butGanzelmeier et al., 1995; Groenendijk et al., 1994;the data available may not be sufficient to show anyUSEPA, 1999a). However, some studies have addressedreliable trend.the effect of spray depositions due to aerial application

of pesticides (Bird et al., 1996; Ernst et al., 1991). Detec-tion of insecticides following application in rice fields EFFECTSwas reported in seven studies, two of which appeared

Table 2 lists the available field studies on biologicalsince 2000, and leaching was mentioned in two studieseffects of agricultural insecticide pollution in surfacefrom 1998 and 1999.waters. The reports are sorted chronologically to showA few studies reported detections of the same com-the historical development. A classification was under-pound in both sediment and suspended-particle samplestaken based on the relationship between exposure andfrom the same catchment (Table 1), suggesting highereffects, consisting of the following four classes: “no rela-levels in suspended particles. The chemicals DDT, diel-tion,” “assumed relation,” “likely relation,” and “cleardrin, and parathion-ethyl were detected at levels of 0.2,relation.” This classification is largely based on the cited0.2, and 1 �g/kg in bottom sediments and at considerably

higher levels of 4.7, 17, and 13 �g/kg, respectively, in authors’ judgement of their own results; a relationship

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Fig. 1. Relationship between catchment size and aqueous-phase nonpoint-source insecticide contamination detected in samples of surface waters.The database is derived from the studies summarized in Table 1.

was classified as clear only if the exposure was quantified (Rana temporaria) in situ in streams beside potato (Sola-num tuberosum L.) fields and detected increased ratesand the effects were linked to exposure temporally and

spatially, including control situations without effects. A of deformities after oxamyl application (Table 2). Asthe exposure concentrations were not measured in thissecond important criterion for the evaluation of studies

in Table 2 is the exposure scenario. Studies using experi- study, it is difficult to establish a link between exposureand effects. Heckman (1981) between 1978 and 1980mental exposure (insecticide injection or overspraying)

were judged less relevant than studies on nonpoint- performed an extensive survey of the macroinvertebratefauna in ditches draining an intensively used orchardsource pollution events monitored during normal farm-

ing practice, and were thus less represented in Table 2. area in northern Germany and compared his data withresults from another study (Garms, 1961) done in theThird, a distinction is made between effects on organ-

isms exposed in situ, which again reflects a more artifi- same area between 1951 and 1957, before the com-mencement of insecticide, acarizide, fungicide, and her-cial experimental scenario, and effects on parameters

such as temporal (abundance) or spatial (drift) species bicide application. He concluded that the 25 yr of pesti-cide application had a major effect in that various insector community dynamics in the field, which are described

using the respective sampling methods. species, namely 48 of the original 62 coleopteran species(e.g., Dytiscidae and Helodidae), disappeared. On theThe first studies were reported in the 1970s and 1980s.

Many of the early studies were based in Canada and other hand, Turbellaria were not affected and dipteranseven increased in species number. As there were nofocused on side effects either of aerial application of

insecticides (e.g., fenitrothion) to forest environments measurements of insecticide concentrations in water orsediment, a direct cause–effect relationship remains(Eidt, 1975; Flannagan, 1973; Poirier and Surgeoner,

1988) or of experimental injections of simulium larvi- speculative. However, residues of the organochlorineinsecticides lindane and DDT have been found in se-cides (e.g., methoxychlor or fenthion) into headwater

streams (Burdick et al., 1968; Clark et al., 1987; Cuffney lected invertebrate and fish species (Heckman, 1981),suggesting that aquatic communities have been exposedet al., 1984; Dosdall and Lehmkuhl, 1989; Flannagan et

al., 1979; Freeden, 1974, 1975; Haufe et al., 1980; Hynes to these pesticides.As part of a larger investigation on cypermethrin,and Wallace, 1975; Wallace and Hynes, 1975; Wallace

et al., 1976). They are thus not reported in Table 2. Crossland et al. (1982) studied the effects of spray drift–borne residues in a small stream in France during appli-Yasuno et al. (1981) studied the effects of the simulium

larvicide temephos, which was experimentally added to cation to adjacent vineyards. Concentrations peaked at1.7 �g/L and fell to zero within a few hours. Anothertwo small tributaries of the Yamaguchi River, Japan,

on invertebrate drift. Jacobi (1977) developed field con- study examined the effects of aerial application of cyper-methrin in drainage ditches bordering winter wheattainers for the in situ exposure of invertebrates to test

for side effects of antimycin applied to kill rough fish. fields, and found peak levels of 0.03 �g/L (Shires andBennett, 1985). Both studies concluded that there wereThe effects of the lampricide TFM (3-trifluormethyl-

4-nitrophenol) on drift and abundance of various insect no marked biological effects of the transient insecticidecontamination on invertebrates, zooplankton, and cagedspecies were reported by Dermott and Spence (1984).

Cooke (1981) exposed tadpoles of common frogs fishes apart from a slight increase in invertebrate drift.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le2.

Fie

ldan

din

situ

stud

ies

desi

gned

toes

tabl

ish

are

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

nth

ein

sect

icid

eco

ntam

inat

ion

ofsu

rfac

ew

ater

sdu

eto

usua

lag

ricu

ltur

alpr

acti

cean

def

fect

son

the

aqua

tic

faun

a.

Inse

ctic

ide

expo

sure

Tox

icol

ogic

alef

fect

sR

elat

ions

hip

expo

sure

Sour

ceSu

bsta

nce(

s)Q

uant

ific

atio

nD

urat

ion

End

poin

tSp

ecie

san

def

fect

Ref

eren

ce

Run

off

oxam

ylno

uncl

ear

defo

rmit

ies

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)fr

og(R

ana

tem

pora

ria)

assu

med

Coo

ke(1

981)

Run

off

uncl

ear

noun

clea

rab

unda

nce

vari

ous

inve

rteb

rate

spec

ies

assu

med

Hec

kman

(198

1)Sp

ray

drif

tcy

perm

ethr

in0.

4–1.

7�

g/L

few

hab

unda

nce,

drif

tva

riou

sin

vert

ebra

tesp

ecie

sno

Cro

ssla

ndet

al.(

1982

)A

eria

lap

plic

atio

ncy

perm

ethr

in0.

03�

g/L

few

hab

unda

nce

vari

ous

plan

kton

ican

dbe

nthi

cno

Shir

esan

dB

enne

tt(1

985)

inve

rteb

rate

sR

unof

fpa

rath

ion-

ethy

l0.

3–83

�g/

Lfe

wh

abun

danc

eva

riou

sin

vert

ebra

tesp

ecie

sas

sum

edA

ufse

ßet

al.(

1989

)pa

rath

ion-

met

hyl

0.4–

213

�g/

Ltr

ichl

orfo

n6–

182

�g/

Lox

ydem

eton

-met

hyl

1–63

�g/

LR

unof

ffe

nval

erat

e0.

11�

g/L

few

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)sh

rim

p(P

alae

mon

etes

pugi

o)cl

ear

Bau

ghm

anet

al.(

1989

)R

unof

fun

clea

rno

uncl

ear

com

mun

ity

com

posi

tion

vari

ous

inve

rteb

rate

spec

ies

assu

med

Dan

cean

dH

ynes

(198

0)A

pplic

atio

nto

rice

fiel

dsfe

nobu

carb

1–4

�g/

Lfe

wd

abun

danc

em

ayfl

y(B

aeti

sth

erm

icus

)as

sum

edT

akam

ura

etal

.(19

91b)

App

licat

ion

tori

cefi

elds

mal

athi

on0.

26–0

.69

�g/

Lfe

wd

abun

danc

eva

riou

sod

onat

esp

ecie

sas

sum

edT

akam

ura

etal

.(19

91a)

Run

off

uncl

ear

noun

clea

rab

unda

nce,

prod

ucti

onca

ddis

fly

(Hyd

rops

yche

spp.

)as

sum

edSa

llena

vean

dD

ay(1

991)

Run

off

DD

T22

–220

�g/

kgun

clea

rde

form

itie

sdi

pter

an(C

hiro

nom

idae

)as

sum

edM

adde

net

al.(

1992

)A

pplic

atio

nto

rice

fiel

dsfe

nobu

carb

22.4

�g/

Lfe

wh

abun

danc

edi

pter

an(A

ntoc

hasp

p.)

assu

med

Tad

aan

dSh

irai

shi

(199

4)Sp

ray

drif

tpy

reth

roid

sno

uncl

ear

die-

off

vari

ous

fish

spec

ies

assu

med

Saly

ian

dC

saba

(199

4)U

ncle

arun

clea

rno

uncl

ear

abun

danc

eva

riou

sin

vert

ebra

tesp

ecie

sas

sum

edL

enat

and

Cra

wfo

rd(1

994)

Exp

erim

enta

lpa

rath

ion-

met

hyl

0.5–

5.8

�g/

Lfe

wd

mor

talit

y(i

nsi

tubi

oass

ay)

dipt

eran

(Cha

obor

uscr

ysta

llin

us)

clea

rB

erge

ma

and

Rom

bout

(199

4)E

xper

imen

tal

para

thio

n-m

ethy

l0.

5–5.

8�

g/L

few

dm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

spp.

)cl

ear

deJo

ngan

dB

erge

ma

(199

4)A

pplic

atio

nto

wat

ercr

ess

beds

mal

athi

onno

few

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

pule

x)as

sum

edC

rane

etal

.(19

95b)

Unc

lear

uncl

ear

noun

clea

rm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

pule

x),

assu

med

Cra

neet

al.(

1995

a)di

pter

an(C

hiro

nom

usri

pari

us)

Unc

lear

anti

chol

ines

tera

seco

mpo

und

ND

uncl

ear

die-

off

fres

hwat

erm

usse

lsas

sum

edF

lem

ing

(199

5)m

usse

lch

olin

este

rase

mus

sel

(Ell

ipti

oco

mpl

anat

a)R

unof

fca

rbof

uran

0.05

–26.

8�

g/L

few

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

pule

x)cl

ear

Mat

thie

ssen

etal

.(19

95)

Aer

ial

appl

icat

ion

carb

aryl

0.1–

85.1

�g/

L24

hdr

ift

vari

ous

inve

rteb

rate

spec

ies

likel

yB

eyer

set

al.(

1995

)A

eria

lap

plic

atio

nfe

nthi

on0.

5–50

�g/

Lfe

wd

mor

talit

y(l

abor

ator

ybi

oass

ay)

shri

mp

(Par

atya

com

pres

salik

ely

Hat

akey

ama

and

impr

ovis

a)Y

okoy

ama

(199

7)fi

eld

com

mun

itie

sva

riou

sin

vert

ebra

tesp

ecie

sA

eria

lap

plic

atio

nfe

nobu

carb

,fen

itro

thio

n,0.

2–1.

5�

g/L

few

hlif

ecy

cle

dam

self

ly(C

alop

tery

xat

rata

)as

sum

edT

akam

ura

(199

6)fe

nthi

onR

unof

fen

dosu

lfan

1.44

�g/

Lun

clea

rdi

e-of

fva

riou

sfi

shsp

ecie

slik

ely

Ros

set

al.(

1996

)L

each

ing

(irr

igat

ion)

chlo

rpyr

ifos

0.12

�g/

Lap

prox

.24

hbr

ain

chol

ines

tera

seca

rp(C

ypri

nus

carp

io)

likel

yG

rube

ran

dM

unn

(199

8)az

inph

os-m

ethy

l0.

2�

g/L

Exp

erim

enta

lde

ltam

ethr

in0.

46�

g/L

uncl

ear

abun

danc

eva

riou

sin

vert

ebra

tesp

ecie

scl

ear

Lah

r(1

998)

difl

uben

zuro

n10

�g/

Lfe

nitr

othi

on80

�g/

LA

eria

lap

plic

atio

ncy

perm

ethr

in2–

25�

g/kg

�15

0d

abun

danc

e,em

erge

nce

dipt

eran

(Chi

rono

mid

ae)

clea

rK

edw

ards

etal

.(19

99)

Run

off

uncl

ear

noun

clea

rm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(H

yale

lla

azte

ca),

assu

med

Tuc

ker

and

Bur

ton

dipt

eran

(Chi

rono

mus

tent

ans)

(199

9)

Con

tinu

edne

xtpa

ge.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le2.

Con

tinu

ed.

Inse

ctic

ide

expo

sure

Tox

icol

ogic

alef

fect

sR

elat

ions

hip

expo

sure

Sour

ceSu

bsta

nce(

s)Q

uant

ific

atio

nD

urat

ion

End

poin

tSp

ecie

san

def

fect

Ref

eren

ce

Run

off

para

thio

n-et

hyl

2.3–

4.4

�g/

kgfe

wh

mus

cle

chol

ines

tera

sest

ickl

ebac

ks(G

aste

rost

eus

clea

rSt

urm

etal

.(19

99)

acul

eatu

s)R

unof

faz

inph

os-m

ethy

l1.

42–2

1�

g/L

few

hdi

e-of

fes

tuar

ine

fish

likel

yF

inle

yet

al.(

1999

)ab

unda

nce

shri

mp

(Pal

aem

onet

espu

gio)

Run

off

para

thio

n-et

hyl

6�

g/L

1h

mor

talit

y(i

nsi

tust

ream

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

pule

x),

clea

rL

iess

and

Schu

lz(1

999)

abun

danc

eca

ddis

fly

(Lim

neph

ilus

luna

tus)

Run

off

fenv

aler

ate

0.85

–6.2

�g/

L1

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)am

phip

od(G

amm

arus

pule

x),

clea

rSc

hulz

and

Lie

ss(1

999b

)ab

unda

nce

cadd

isfl

y(L

imne

phil

uslu

natu

s)R

unof

faz

inph

os-m

ethy

l0.

1–7

�g/

Lfe

wh

mor

talit

y(i

nsi

tubi

oass

ay)

shri

mp

(Pal

aem

onet

espu

gio)

,cl

ear

Scot

tet

al.(

1999

)en

dosu

lfan

0.01

–0.8

5�

g/L

mum

mic

hog

(Fun

dulu

sfe

nval

erat

e0.

02–0

.9�

g/L

hete

rocl

itus

)R

unof

fen

dosu

lfan

1.3–

10�

g/kg

SPM

D†

uncl

ear

abun

danc

eE

phem

erop

tera

,tri

chop

tera

clea

rL

eona

rdet

al.(

1999

)R

unof

fpa

rath

ion-

ethy

l6

�g/

L1

hab

unda

nce,

drif

t,m

orta

lity

Tri

chop

tera

,oth

erin

vert

ebra

tes

clea

rSc

hulz

and

Lie

ss(1

999a

)A

pplic

atio

nto

rice

fiel

dslin

dane

,dia

zino

n,no

uncl

ear

com

mun

ity

com

posi

tion

vari

ous

inse

ctta

xalik

ely

Suhl

ing

etal

.(20

00)

cype

rmet

hrin

-�R

unof

fen

dosu

lfan

SPM

Dun

clea

rab

unda

nce

Eph

emer

opte

ra,t

rich

opte

racl

ear

Leo

nard

etal

.(20

00)

Ric

ese

edco

atin

gfi

pron

il9.

1�

g/L

,5.5

�g/

kg96

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)cr

ayfi

sh(P

roca

mba

rus

spp.

)cl

ear

Schl

enk

etal

.(20

01)

Run

off

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.8

�g/

L4

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)di

pter

an(C

hiro

nom

ussp

p.)

clea

rSc

hulz

and

Pea

ll(2

001)

endo

sulf

an0.

2�

g/L

Spra

ydr

ift

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.87

�g/

L1

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)di

pter

an(C

hiro

nom

ussp

p.)

clea

rSc

hulz

etal

.(20

01c)

Run

off

endo

sulf

an10

–318

�g/

kgfe

wh

abun

danc

e,dr

ift

vari

ous

inve

rteb

rate

spec

ies

clea

rJe

rgen

tzet

al.(

2004

)R

unof

f,sp

ray

drif

taz

inph

os-m

ethy

l0.

82�

g/L

1–3

hco

mm

unit

yco

mpo

siti

onE

phem

erop

tera

,oth

erin

sect

scl

ear

Schu

lzet

al.(

2002

)ch

lorp

yrif

os34

4�

g/kg

Exp

erim

enta

lpa

rath

ion-

met

hyl

1–55

0�

g/L

few

dab

unda

nce

vari

ous

inve

rteb

rate

spec

ies

clea

rSc

hulz

etal

.(20

03b)

Run

off

chlo

rpyr

ifos

1.3

�g/

L,8

9.4

�g/

kg4

hm

orta

lity

(in

situ

bioa

ssay

)di

pter

an(C

hiro

nom

ussp

p.)

clea

rM

oore

etal

.(20

02)

Run

off

chlo

rpyr

ifos

300–

720

�g/

kgfe

wh

mor

talit

y(i

nsi

tubi

oass

ay)

amph

ipod

(Par

amel

ita

clea

rSc

hulz

(200

3)en

dosu

lfan

4.6–

156

�g/

kgni

groc

ulus

)

†Se

mip

erm

eabl

em

embr

ane

devi

ce.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


In various trials between 1984 and 1986, Aufseß et Shiraishi, 1994; Takamura, 1996; Takamura et al., 1991a,1991b). However, none of these studies established aal. (1989) measured high concentrations of the organo-

phosphate insecticides parathion-methyl, parathion-ethyl, clear relationship between exposure and invertebratedynamics, and thus the authors were only able to assumeoxydemeton-methyl, and trichlorfon in streams draining

vineyards in southwestern Germany. Changes in the a link of insecticide pollution to the observed effects(Table 2). Hatakeyama and Yokoyama (1997) later triedabundance of macroinvertebrates over time were also

reported but were not clearly attributable to the timing to link shrimp mortality in water samples taken duringaerial application of fenthion to rice fields in the catch-of pesticide contamination, although 50% of the water

samples taken were toxic to waterfleas (Daphnia magna). ment of the Suna River, Japan to the dynamics of thebenthic invertebrate communities. No clear connectionFollowing runoff events, Baughman et al. (1989) de-

tected fenvalerate at levels of up to 0.1 �g/L in estuarine was established, since the community structure had al-ready changed between April and May, whereas thesites in South Carolina. Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

exposed in situ showed increased mortality rates in com- first spraying associated with shrimp mortality did notoccur until July.parison with animals exposed at uncontaminated con-

trol sites. Thus, this is probably one of the first studies Studies from the UK on in situ exposure of scud(Gammarus pulex) (Amphipoda) alone (Crane et al.,establishing a link between quantified insecticide expo-

sure due to usual farming practice and biological re- 1995b) or in combination with the dipteran speciesmidge (Chironomus riparius) (Crane et al., 1995a) againsponses (Table 2); however, it does not deal with the

dynamics of in-stream species or communities. only assumed a link to insecticide pollution, as no expo-sure quantification was conducted. As part of a projectIn the early 1990s, further studies on the effects of

forest insecticide application in Canada, USA, Japan, on the development of field bioassays in the Nether-lands, in situ effects on scud (Gammarus spp.) or theand Australia on invertebrate abundance, drift, and

emergence were published (Davies and Cook, 1993; dipteran phantom midge (Chaoborus crystallinus) (Ber-gema and Rombout, 1994; deJong and Bergema, 1994)Griffith et al., 1996; Hatakeyama et al., 1990; Kreutz-

weiser and Sibley, 1991; Sibley et al., 1991). A series of were shown; however, the sites were experimentallypolluted. In a stream at the Rosemaund farm in thestudies reported effects of experimental injection of the

simulium larvicide methoxychlor into headwaters in UK, Matthiessen et al. (1995) observed a high mortalityof scud (G. pulex) exposed in situ during a runoff-relatedCanada on functional community structure, secondary

production, and particulate matter export (Lugthart and peak of carbofuran contamination, reaching a level of264 �g/L. This study is thus only the second exampleWallace, 1992; Lugthart et al., 1990; Wallace et al.,

1991a, 1995) and documented the subsequent recoloni- of a clear link between non-experimental, quantifiedexposure and effects under field conditions, and againzation patterns (Wallace et al., 1991b). The short-term

effects of carbosulfan and permethrin on invertebrate employed in situ exposure of the organisms.Since the late 1990s, only few further studies on thedrift in the Black Volta, Ghana were described by Sam-

man et al. (1994). These studies are again not included effects of simulium larvicides on aquatic ecosystemshave been performed (Crosa et al., 1998). In situ bio-in Table 2 because of the artificial exposure scenario

applied. assays using an amphipod (Hyalella azteca) or midge(Chironomus tentans) were developed in the USA andSallenave and Day (1991) documented a factor of five

difference in the average yearly secondary production set a precedent for detecting agricultural nonpoint-source pollution in a study without parallel pesticideof four coexisting hydropsychid species (Trichoptera)

in two tributaries in Ontario differing in the intensity analyses (Tucker and Burton, 1999). Three insecticidesapplied to rice fields in southern France were suggestedof agricultural land use in their surroundings. Lenat and

Crawford (1994) and Dance and Hynes (1980) success- as an important factor determining macroinvertebratecomposition (Suhling et al., 2000), although no analyti-fully linked different forms of land use including agricul-

ture with the invertebrate community structure. How- cal quantification took place. Finley et al. (1999) re-ported a fish-kill in South Carolina estuarine waters dueever, again, no pesticide analyses were performed

during these studies. The same applies to die-off events to a level of 1.4 �g/L azinphos-methyl. However, evenmuch higher concentrations of this insecticide wereof freshwater fish reported from Hungary with pyre-

throids as the potential cause (Salyi and Csaba, 1994). measured in the same estuarine waters, and a correlationof the exposure concentrations with reduced shrimpFleming (1995) investigated a freshwater mussel die-off

and measured reduced cholinesterase levels in mussel densities and biomass was thus likely (Finley et al.,1999). Lahr (1998) summarized a set of studies under-(Elliptio complananta), although no anticholinesterase

chemicals were detectable. The lack of exposure data taken by experimental injection of insecticides into nat-ural ponds as part of a program aimed at assessing thein all these studies makes a direct link of observed effects

to contamination impossible. risk assessment of insecticides used in desert locust(Schistocerca gregaria) control. The pyrethroid delta-Fish kills in estuarine waters in South Carolina were

assumed to be linked to endosulfan concentrations as methrin, the organophosphate fenitrothion, and the in-sect growth regulator diflubenzuron were shown to af-high as 1.44 �g/L (Ross et al., 1996). Various Japanese

studies from the 1990s examined the potential effects of fect the abundances of various invertebrate species inthe ponds. Clear effects on invertebrates were also ob-insecticide use in rice fields on odonata, ephemeroptera,

and other insect taxa in the receiving streams (Tada and tained from a study using wetlands in Mississippi sub-

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


jected to experimental parathion-methyl contamination same species in the stream itself. Similarly, a link be-tween survival in multispecies microcosm exposed toas part of a larger investigation on the effects of wetland

plants on pesticide transport and toxicity (Schulz et al., azinphos-metyl and the abundance dynamics of inverte-brate species at various sites in a transiently insecticide-2003b). Clear transient effects on dipterans (chironom-

ids) were observed in a 3.4-ha farm pond experimentally contaminated river system was recently established inthe Lourens River catchment, South Africa (Schulz etcontaminated with spraydrift-borne cypermethrin at

levels up to 25 �g/kg in hydrosoils (Kedwards et al., al., 2002).Leonard et al. (1999) studied the abundance of six1999).

As an example using biochemical markers as end- invertebrate species at eight sites in the Namoi River,southeastern Australia in relation to the cotton insecti-points, Gruber and Munn (1998) found reduced brain

cholinesterase levels in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) cide endosulfan, which enters the water mainly via run-off. This data set was extended in a second study andin a pond in the central Columbia Plateau, USA that

had been affected by organophosphates presumably in- analyzed with different multivariate statistical proce-dures including principal response curves (Leonard ettroduced via leaching as a result of irrigation. As the

measured concentrations were �0.2 �g/L, the authors al., 2000). The results of both studies indicate links be-tween the dynamics of the six dominant species anddid not establish a direct link between exposure and

effects. In contrast, a study on cholinesterase activities the endosulfan contamination; however, the pesticidecontamination was measured using solvent-filled poly-in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

showed a clear link to measured parathion-ethyl concen- ethylene bags as passive samplers and endosulfan wasnot quantified in water samples directly. The endosulfantrations between 2.3 and 4.4 �g/L (Sturm et al., 1999).

Of the nine headwater streams studied in northern Ger- concentrations in the passive samplers were correlatedwith endosulfan levels in bottom sediments, indicatingmany during this investigation, only two were contami-

nated with parathion-ethyl. field concentrations up to 10 �g/kg in the sediments(Leonard et al., 1999). Rather high levels of endosulfanSeveral studies undertaken during the past five years

have successfully linked survival of in situ exposed or- between 10 and 318 �g/kg detected in suspended parti-cles in rural rivers near Buenos Aires, Argentina wereganisms to quantified insecticide contamination. Scott

et al. (1999) employed bioassays with shrimp (P. pugio) recently shown to affect the abundance dynamics anddrift of various insect species (Jergentz et al., 2004).and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to detect ef-

fects of transient contamination by azinphos-methyl, en- During this study, two contaminated rivers showed de-creased abundances of mayfly and dragonfly speciesdosulfan, and fenvalerate introduced into South Caro-

lina estuarine waters via runoff. Kirby-Smith et al. along with drift peaks, while a third river served asan uncontaminated control with unaffected population(1989) found no effects in field-deployed shrimp (P.

pugio) at concentrations below the laboratory effects dynamics. Three sites in a headwater stream in northernGermany were used to measure the abundance and driftlevels. Chironomids and an indigenous amphipod spe-

cies (Paramelita nigroculus) were established as in situ of macroinvertebrates (Schulz and Liess, 1999a). Outof the total of eleven core species, eight disappearedexposure bioassays for the assessment of aqueous-phase

and particle-associated insecticide (azinphos-methyl, following a runoff-related peak concentration of 6 �g/Lparathion-ethyl in water samples. A large increase inchlorpyrifos, endosulfan) toxicity in orchard rivers in

the Western Cape of South Africa (Moore et al., 2002; drift and an elevated mortality rate for caddisfly speciesin the drift added further evidence indicating the insecti-Schulz and Peall, 2001; Schulz et al., 2001c; Schulz, 2003).

The response of crayfish (Procambarus spp.) exposed in cide exposure as the responsible factor. Furthermore, theauthors were able to show that even stronger rainfall-situ to fipronil used as a rice seed coating in Mississippi

is reported by Schlenk et al. (2001). The validity and related runoff events without pesticide contaminationthat occurred shortly before the insecticide applicationecological relevance of an in situ bioassay was tested

by Schulz and Liess (1999b) in an agricultural headwater period had no effects on the invertebrate abundances ordrift, suggesting that other parameters such as hydraulicstream in northern Germany during runoff-related con-

tamination with fenvalerate up to 6.2 �g/L. Caddisfly stress or turbidity were of minor importance during thisstudy (Schulz and Liess, 1999a).(Limnephilus lunatus) and amphipod (G. pulex) both

showed mortality in the in situ bioassays during transient It thus follows from Table 2 that since 1999, a totalof eight published studies have shown a more or lessinsecticide pollution. However, the authors inferred

from their results that in situ bioassays using mobile clear link between agricultural insecticide pollution andabundance dynamics or community composition of mac-species such as amphipods may overestimate field toxic-

ity, as the caged organisms are prevented from per- roinvertebrates. Evidently, increased interest in thetopic, in combination with the development of moreforming any avoidance reactions, such as downstream

drift. Another study in the same catchment used a set sophisticated methods for sampling and data analysis,have been responsible for the abundance of recent pa-of microcosms fed by stream water, of which some were

run in a closed circuit during runoff-related parathion- pers successfully linking agricultural insecticide contam-ination with observed biological effects at the popula-ethyl and fenvalerate exposure in the stream, to show

effects on the same two invertebrate species (Liess and tion or community level. However, it is important tonote that for almost all of these studies that seem toSchulz, 1999). Both studies successfully linked their ex-

perimental results to the abundance dynamics of the establish a clear link between exposure and effect, the

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Table 3. Water quality guidelines for selected insecticides in com-pesticide concentrations measured in the field were notparison with maximum concentrations found in surface watershigh enough to support an explanation of the observed and number of studies reporting exceedence of the respective

effects simply based on acute toxicity data. Matthiessen water quality guideline.et al. (1995) observed 100% mortality of caged scud (G.

Number of studiespulex) following exposure to a peak concentration of Water quality Maximum detected exceeding qualitySubstance guideline† concentration‡ guideline‡27 �g/L carbofuran, which exceeded the 24-h LC50 of 21

�g/L for only 3 to 5 h. Baughman et al. (1989) suggested �g/Ldifferences in measured and real exposure concentra- Aldicarb 1 6.4 2

Azinphos-methyl 0.01 21 9tions to be a reason for higher mortalities in in situCarbaryl 0.02 85.1 3bioassays than predicted from laboratory data. The mea- Carbofuran 0.5 49.4 3

sured short-term peak concentrations of 6 �g/L para- Chlorpyrifos 0.01 3.8 11Cypermethrin 0.0068 1.7 1thion-ethyl or 6.2 �g/L fenvalerate associated with fieldCyfluthrin 0.0015 5.0 1effects (Liess and Schulz, 1999; Schulz and Liess, 1999a, DDT 0.01 1.1 2Deltamethrin 0.0004 2 21999b) are also well below laboratory-derived 24-h LC50Diazinon 0.01 7 11values with an initial 1-h exposure period (Liess, 1994).Dieldrin 0.24 0.26 1

Furthermore, although it was suggested that the endo- Dimethoate 6.2 30 2Endosulfan 0.01 1530 14sulfan levels up to 10 �g/kg in the Namoi River haveFenitrothion 0.11 1.7 3deleterious effects on mayfly (Jappa kutera) and other Fenvalerate 0.008 6.2 4

invertebrates (Leonard et al., 1999, 2000), these and Lindane 0.01 4.9 4Malathion 0.1 3 2even the overall peak concentrations of 48 �g/kg ob-Parathion-ethyl 0.011 83 3tained from another study are lower than the 10-d LC50 Parathion-methyl 0.012 213 3Permethrin 0.0065 1.6 3of 162 �g/kg for mayfly (Leonard et al., 2001). On theTerbufos 0.003 0.3 1basis of present knowledge, it cannot be determinedThiobencarb 3.1 8.0 1

whether the measured concentrations in the field regu- Toxaphene 0.0002 3.9 2larly underestimate the real exposure or if a general

† Short-term or single application values derived from Brock et al. (2000),difference between the field and laboratory reactions Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2001), USEPA

(1999b), and California Environmental Protection Agency (2000).of aquatic invertebrates is responsible for this situation.‡ Data are extracted from Table 1.Apart from some studies that used experimental pest-

icide injection, all field studies on insecticide effectsleast 88 incidents of contamination above the waterlisted in Table 2 were undertaken in surface waters thatquality guidelines were reported. It is likely that evenhave been receiving insecticide pollution for as long asmore detections of high peak insecticide levels wouldseveral years up to a few decades. In ecological science,have been reported, if more than only 50% of the studiesConnell (1980) once coined the expression “ghost oflisted in Table 1 had employed an event-triggered sam-competition past” with reference to the hypothesis thatpling design.competition is not recently visible in communities be-

Table 4 compares the insecticide concentrations hav-cause it has acted in the past in a way that eliminateding clear effects in field studies as listed in Table 2 withcompetition as a driving force for community structure.the maximum detected concentrations from exposureAccordingly, a “ghost of disturbance past” might causefield studies in Table 1. Where available, the three high-difficulty in detecting pesticide-related effects in com-est exposure concentrations measured are included.munities recently inhabiting agricultural surface waters,Each of the values given for a particular insecticidesince any potential pesticide influence would have al-as a measure of effects or exposure is derived from aready acted several years ago.different study. It is evident that for azinphos-methyl,chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, endosulfan, and parathion-

COMBINATION OF EXPOSURE ethyl the concentrations detected are well above theAND EFFECTS minima for causing effects in organisms exposed in situ

or populations and communities studied in the field.Exposure concentrations detected in the field areFor carbofuran, only one documented exposure valuecommonly compared with surface water quality guide-exceeds the reported effect level. For fenvalerate, onelines for the protection of aquatic life. Table 3 listsexposure concentration exceeds the effect level fromexisting water quality guidelines for insecticides relevantone of the effects studies available. No assessment isfor short-term or single exposure in comparison withpossible for fipronil or diflubenzuron as the only expo-detected concentrations in surface waters according tosure concentrations available are from the same studythe studies summarized in Table 1. It becomes evidentthat reported the effects, or there are no exposure data.that for all insecticides listed, apart from cypermethrin,

In summary, this comparison based exclusively oncyfluthrin, dieldrin, thiobencarb, and terbufos, the es-field studies for both exposure and effects suggests thattablished water quality guideline has been exceeded infor various insecticides, there exists a potential for ef-multiple instances. The exceeding factor lies between 3fects on the aquatic fauna under natural conditions.and 5 orders of magnitude for most of the insecticides.The absolute number of 27 potentially critical situationsAzinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and endosul-derived from this comparison and the number of ninefan were shown to exceed the water quality guideline

in 9 to 14 studies extracted from Table 1. A total of at insecticides for which such a comparison is possible

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Table 4. Comparison of insecticide concentrations demonstrated venting backflow of pesticides into water supplies, im-to have clear effects in the field with the three highest concentra- proved calibration of pesticide spray equipment, andtions detected for the same insecticide in field studies.†

IPM (Caruso, 2000).Field effect Detected field The effects of conservation tillage are summarized by

concentrations‡ concentrations§Fawcett et al. (1994), focusing mainly on herbicides. The

In situ Abundance or Sediments or Brimstone farm experiment in the UK is described byInsecticide bioassays drift reaction Water suspended particles

Harris et al. (1995) as a practical example for the positiveAzinphos-methyl 0.2 �g/L 0.82 �g/L 21 �g/L effect of agricultural management on pesticide runoff.

0.7 �g/L 1.5 �g/LPrograms aiming at changes in the application practices,1 �g/L

Carbofuran 26.8 �g/L 49.4 �g/L namely reduced pesticide use, were successfully imple-4.8 �g/L mented in Ontario, Canada (Gallivan et al., 2001) and1.8 �g/L

in Norway (Epstein et al., 2001). Measures to reduceChlorpyrifos 1.3 �g/L 344 �g/kg 3.8 �g/L 924 �g/kg300–720 �g/kg 3.2 �g/L 720 �g/kg pesticide loss due to spray drift have been discussed in

9.4 �g/kg 2.8 �g/L 344 �g/kg relation to IPM by Matthews (1994), while BlommersDeltamethrin 0.46 �g/L 2.0 �g/L1.4 �g/L (1994) summarizes IPM options for apple (Malus do-

– mestica Borkh.) orchards in Europe. Integrated pestDiflubenzuron 10 �g/L –

management in general was subjected to a recent reviewEndosulfan 0.8 �g/L 318 �g/kg 1530 �g/L 12 082 �g/kg4.8–156 �g/kg 13 �g/L 2 461 �g/kg by Way and van Emden (2000). A special program of

10 �g/kg 4 �g/L 318 �g/kg integrated crop management from the UK covers notFenitrothion 80 �g/L 1.7 �g/Lonly crop protection, but also landscape features, man-0.4 �g/L

0.2 �g/L agement of the soil, wildlife, and habitats (DrummondFipronil 9.1 �g/L 9.1 �g/L 5.5 �g/kg and Lawton, 1995). A five-year study by Kirby-Smith5.5 �g/kgFenvalerate 6.2 �g/L 6.2 �g/L 6.2 �g/L et al. (1992) of pesticide runoff and associated ecological

0.11 �g/L 0.11 �g/L effects in an estuarine watershed in North Carolina dem-0.1 �g/L

onstrated how conservative pest management practicesParathion-ethyl 6 �g/L¶ 6 �g/L 83 �g/L 50.8 �g/kg0.5–5.8 �g/L 6 �g/L 13 �g/kg that minimized pesticide application frequency and2.3–4.4 �g/kg# 0.4 �g/L 8.7 �g/kg rates coupled with the use of less persistent pesticides

† Each value given for a particular insecticide for the effects or exposure is can reduce the toxicity to single species monitored inderived from a different study. the field and laboratory tests, and communities of ben-‡ Data are derived from Table 2.

thic and pelagic invertebrate and fish. Economic aspects§ Information on detected concentrations is included for both water and parti-cles only if effective concentrations are also available for both matrices. Data of nonpoint-source pollution control measures for theare derived from Table 1. Up to three highest available concentrations management of environmental contamination by ag-are given.

¶ Field stream microcosm result. ricultural pesticides have also been summarized (Fal-# Effect on fish cholinesterase. coner, 1998; Mainstone and Schofield, 1996).

Buffer zones, in terms of no-spray field margins ornoncrop, vegetated riparian strips to prevent pesticidemight still appear to be quite small. However, it is impor-

tant to note that the field effect studies that are used movement from application areas to adjacent nontargetaquatic habitats, have received increasing attention asin Table 4 are examples that were actually present under

normal farming practice. As discussed in the previous an agricultural end-of-field best management practice.Based on permethrin applications in Canadian forests,section, relatively few and mostly recent studies exist

on the effects under field conditions. It is thus possible a technique for estimating the width of buffer zone areasduring pesticide application based on experimentalthat further field investigations might reveal further evi-

dence of effects, lower effect levels, or provide results spray drift data and laboratory toxicity results has beensuggested (Payne et al., 1988). Attempts were made infor other insecticides.the United States to link knowledge obtained from spraydrift studies to buffer width definitions (i.e., to base no-

RISK MITIGATION spray zones on spray quality, release height, and othervariables, such as wind speed, for protecting specificThe terms “risk mitigation” and “best managementsensitive areas) (Hewitt, 2000). In 1999, the Local Envi-practice” for pesticides are used in a similar way, asronmental Risk Assessments for Pesticides (LERAPs)general designations of a process in which manufactur-were implemented in the UK, considering the use ofers, farmers, and regulators negotiate various sorts ofreduced application rates, engineering controls, or therestrictions or alterations of agricultural practice tosize of the watercourse as three factors that might allowavoid predicted unacceptable risk. Practical methods ofsome reduction in the no-application zone to becontrolling pollution risk have been reviewed, includingachieved (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,both in-field (soil conservation measures, application1999). A recent review on the use of windbreaks as apractices, and integrated pest management [IPM]) andpesticide drift mitigation strategy concluded that thereend-of-field (buffer zones) techniques (Mainstone andare still enormous data gaps to be filled before thisSchofield, 1996). The specific types of pesticide-relatedmethod can be used efficiently (Ucar and Hall, 2001).best management practices (BMPs) commonly used inQuite apart from water quality considerations, a com-the United States include reducing pesticide use, im-

proving the timing and efficiency of application, pre- pelling argument can be made for the establishment of

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


pacity for individual contaminants to be variable, largelyreflecting the diversity of conditions in which they oper-ate. In addition, the effectiveness of removal under fixedconditions varies depending on chemical characteristics(Mainstone and Schofield, 1996).

According to some authors, the suitability of bufferstrips to retain mobile pesticides is questionable (Wil-liams and Nicks, 1993). One aspect that might restrictthe effectiveness of any buffer strip is the rather simplerelation between rainfall intensity and the amount ofwater leaving the fields via surface runoff. To illustratethis “hydrological dilemma,” the amount of surface run-off was related to rainfall intensity in a simple modelon the basis of theoretical considerations and a largeamount of empirical data from Germany (Lutz, 1984;Maniak, 1992), as outlined in Fig. 2.

It is evident that an increase in rainfall intensity onloamy soil with a high soil moisture by a factor of three,from 10 to 30 mm, results in an increase of surface runoffby a factor of ten, from about 1 to 10 mm. That meansthat heavy rainfall events causing storm runoff are al-ways associated with the production of extremely largevolumes of water in a short time. In many circumstancesthese large water volumes may not be retained by anyFig. 2. The amount of surface runoff on sandy and loamy soils withsort of widely employed buffer strip, and erosion chan-a high soil moisture in relation to rainfall intensity, according to

Lutz (1984) and Maniak (1992). nels formed during these conditions may further jeopar-dize the positive effect of buffer zones. This “hydro-logical dilemma” may result in unavoidable pesticidebuffer zones in many areas on the basis of their potentialcontaminations of surface waters specifically under con-for enhancing the ecological quality of river corridors,ditions where other measures are not applicable or dothrough the extension of management (e.g., no-spraynot produce the necessary benefit (i.e., high-quality soilzones) alongside riverbanks (De Snoo, 1999; Schultz etareas under intensive agricultural use). In these cases,al., 1995). It is important, however, to recognize thatstructural features of the receiving surface waters, suchbuffer zones are not a solution to the root cause of agricul-as vegetation coverage, may be useful in mitigating thetural contamination of receiving waters, which is relatedrisk of insecticide pollution.to certain in-field agricultural practices that produce both

Constructed wetlands or vegetated ditches have beencontaminated runoff and unnecessary aerial transport ofproposed in this context as risk mitigation techniques.contaminants (Mainstone and Schofield, 1996).Complementing their ecological importance as ecotonesAs spray deposition decreases exponentially with in-between land and water (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993)creasing distance from the sprayed area (Ganzelmeierand as habitats with great diversity and heterogeneityet al., 1995; USEPA, 1999a), a positive effect of buffer(Wetzel, 1993), specifically constructed wetlands arezones on the reduction of drift access to adjacent waterused extensively for water quality improvement. Thebodies and thus the risk to aquatic organisms is veryconcept of vegetation as a tool for contaminant mitiga-likely and has been shown in field trials (De Snoo andtion (phytoremediation) is not new (Dietz and Schnoor,De Wit, 1998). Vegetated buffer strips were also men-2001). Many studies have evaluated the use of wetlandtioned as a means of reducing runoff-related pesticideplants to mitigate pollutants such as road runoff, metals,transport to surface waters. Auerswald and Haiderdairy wastes, and even municipal wastes (Brix, 1994;(1992) investigated copper-containing chemical loss fromCooper et al., 1995; Gray et al., 1990; Kadlec and Knight,hops and showed that small particles, which may be1996; Meulemann et al., 1990; Osterkamp et al., 1999;associated with a large proportion of pesticide loss dur-Scholes et al., 1998; Vymazal, 1990). According to Luck-ing small-sized erosion events (Ghadiri and Rose, 1991),eydoo et al. (2002), the vital role of vegetation in pro-are retained in grassed buffer strips only if they are atcessing water passing through wetlands is accomplishedleast 30 m wide. Experiments conducted in France withthrough biomass nutrient storage and sedimentation,different herbicides indicated a reduction in runoff vol-and by providing unique microhabitats for beneficialume by 43 to 99.9% in the presence of grassed buffersmicroorganisms. Macrophytes serve as filters by allowingstrips with widths between 6 and 18 m (Patty et al., 1995,contaminants to flow into plants and stems, which are1997). In a wet 15-m-wide buffer strip, the herbicidesthen sorbed to macrophyte biofilms (Headley et al.,isoproturon and pendimethalin were retained by 75 and1998; Kadlec and Knight, 1996). According to Zabloto-96%, respectively (Spatz et al., 1997). However, therewicz and Hoagland (1999), whether or not plants areare few studies on the retention capabilities of buffercapable of transferring contaminants from environmen-zones for insecticides. In summary, the available results

on the effectiveness of buffer zones show buffering ca- tal matrices depends upon several factors including con-

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


taminant chemistry, plant tolerance to the contaminant, concentrations and in situ toxicity of chlorpyrifos in thewetland in South Africa (Moore et al., 2002).and sediment surrounding the plant (e.g., pH, redox,

clay content). Another experiment in Oxford, MS targeted the ef-fects of vegetated (�90% macrophyte coverage) versusInitially wetlands were employed mainly to treat point-

source wastewater (Vymazal, 1990), followed later by nonvegetated (�5% macrophyte coverage) wetlandmesocosms on the transport and toxicity of parathion-an increased emphasis on nonpoint-source urban (Shutes

et al., 1997) and agricultural runoff (Cole, 1998; Higgins methyl introduced to simulate a worst-case storm event(Schulz et al., 2003b). Both wetland invertebrate com-et al., 1993; Rodgers et al., 1999). While the fate and

retention of nutrients and sediments in wetlands are munities and midge (C. tentans) exposed in situ weresignificantly less affected in the vegetated wetlandsunderstood quite well (Brix, 1994), the same cannot be

claimed for agrochemicals (Baker, 1993). Most of the (Table 5) confirming the importance of macrophytes intoxicity reduction. Initial parathion-methyl concentra-initial studies referred to the potential of wetlands for

removal of herbicides and some other organic chemicals tions of more than 400 �g/L were reduced to belowdetection limit (0.1 �g/L) within 40 m from the inlet in(Kadlec and Hey, 1994; Lewis et al., 1999; Moore et al.,

2000; Wolverton and Harrison, 1975; Wolverton and the vegetated wetlands, while concentrations as high as8 �g/L were present at 40 m in the nonvegetated wet-McKown, 1976). Since wetlands have the ability to re-

tain and process transported material, it seems reason- lands. A parallel study using laboratory testing withamphipod (Hyalella azteca) indicated that 44 m of vege-able that constructed wetlands, acting as buffer strips

between agricultural areas and receiving surface waters, tated and 111 m of nonvegetated wetland would reducethe mortality to �5% (Schulz et al., 2003c). The pro-could mitigate the effect of pesticides in agricultural

runoff (Rodgers et al., 1999). The effectiveness of wet- cesses relevant for aqueous-phase pesticide dissipationof azinphos-methyl were the subject of another recentlands for reduction of hydrophobic chemicals (e.g., most

insecticides) should be as high as for suspended particles study using the flow-through wetland along one of thetributaries of the Lourens River in South Africa (Schulzand particle-associated phosphorus (Brix, 1994; Kadlec

and Knight, 1996), since these chemicals enter aquatic et al., 2003a). The living plant biomass accounted for10.5% of the azinphos-methyl mass initially retained inecosystems mainly in particle-associated form following

surface runoff (Ghadiri and Rose, 1991; Wauchope, the wetland, indicating processes such as volatilization,photolysis, hydrolysis, or metabolic degradation as be-1978).

Table 5 summarizes the few studies undertaken so ing very important.Apart from these more focused studies, a few furtherfar on insecticide retention in constructed wetlands and

vegetated ditches. The initial studies attempted to quan- studies are included in Table 5. The implementation ofretention ponds in agricultural watersheds was exam-tify insecticide retention in wetlands by taking input

and output measurements and were done on various ined by Scott et al. (1999) as one strategy to reducethe amount and toxicity of runoff-related insecticidecurrent-use insecticides in South Africa. Schulz and

Peall (2001) investigated the retention of azinphos- pollution discharging into estuaries. However, wetlandsizes and retention rates are not further detailed. Briggsmethyl, chlorpyrifos, and endosulfan introduced during

a single runoff event from fruit orchards into a 0.44-ha et al. (1998) inferred, from a study in which nurseryrunoff was experimentally added to clay–gravel or grasswetland. They found retention rates between 77 and

99% for aqueous-phase insecticide concentrations and beds of up to 91 m in length, a reduction of �99.9% interms of the applied chlorpyrifos load, which was not�90% for aqueous-phase insecticide load between the

inlet and outlet of the wetland. Particle-associated insec- further quantified. A positive effect of settling ponds,situated below watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.)ticide load was retained in the same wetland at almost

100% for all the studied organophosphate insecticides beds in the UK that were not further described, wasdocumented using mortality and acetylcholinesteraseand endosulfan. A toxicity reduction was also docu-

mented by midge (Chironomus spp.) exposed in situ at inhibition in scud (G. pulex) exposed in situ as endpoints(Crane et al., 1995b). Retention rates are not given, asthe inlet and outlet of the constructed wetland (Table 5).

Another study performed in the same wetland assessed the concentrations of malathion used in the watercressbeds were not measured in this study.spray drift–borne contamination of the most commonly

used insecticide, azinphos-methyl, and found similar re- In summary, very few and only recent studies havedealt with wetlands or vegetated ditches as risk mitiga-tention rates; however, the retention rate for the pesti-

cide load was only 54.1% (Schulz et al., 2001c). In paral- tion tools for nonpoint-source insecticide pollution.However, the results obtained thus far on chemical re-lel, Moore et al. (2001) conducted research on the fate

of lambda-cyhalothrin experimentally introduced into tention and toxicity reductions are very promising(Table 5), and justify further investigation. A few otherslow-flowing vegetated ditches in Mississippi. They re-

ported a more than 99% reduction of pyrethroid con- studies that have emphasized special aspects of pesticidefate or toxicity in wetlands (Dieter et al., 1996; Spong-centrations below target water quality levels within a

50-m stretch due to an 87% sorption to plants. A further berg and Martin-Hayden, 1997) or uptake of insecticidesto plants (Hand et al., 2001; Karen et al., 1998; Wein-study demonstrated retention of approximately 55 and

25% of chlorpyrifos by sediments and plants, respec- berger et al., 1982) corroborate the idea that aquaticmacrophytes are important to insecticide risk reduction.tively, in wetland mesocosms (59–73 m in length) in

Oxford, Mississippi as well as a �90% reduction in Certain agricultural sectors, such as the greenhouse

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Tab

le5.

Fie

ldst

udie

son

the

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

cons

truc

ted

wet

land

sor

vege

tate

ddi

tche

sin

miti

gatin

gag

ricu

ltura

lins

ectic

ide

cont

amin

atio

nin

surf

ace

wat

ers.

Ret

entio

nIn

let

Wet

land

Eco

toxi

colo

gica

lSo

urce

Subs

tanc

eco

ncen

trat

ion

Con

cent

ratio

nL

oad

Loc

atio

nsi

zeD

omin

ant

plan

tsp

ecie

sas

sess

men

tR

efer

ence

%m

App

licat

ion

tow

ater

cres

sbe

dsm

alat

hion

––

–se

ttlin

gpo

nds

belo

w–

–m

orta

lity

redu

ctio

n,C

rane

etal

.tr

eate

dw

ater

cres

ssc

ud(G

amm

arus

(199

5b)

beds

,UK

pule

x)in

situ

bioa

ssay

Exp

erim

enta

lnur

sery

runo

ffch

lorp

yrifo

sno

data

noda

ta�

99.9

†cl

ay–g

rave

lor

gras

s2

�91

berm

udag

rass

[Cyn

odon

noda

taB

rigg

set

al.

beds

belo

wnu

rser

y,da

ctyl

on(L

.)P

ers.

](1

998)

Sout

hC

arol

ina

Exp

erim

enta

lrun

off

lam

bda-

cyha

loth

rin

500

�g/

L�

99�

99ve

geta

ted

ditc

hes,

50�

1.5

wat

erpe

rsic

aria

noda

taM

oore

etal

.M

issi

ssip

pi(P

olyg

onum

(200

1)am

phib

ium

L.)

,ric

ecu

tgra

ss[L

eers

iaor

yzoi

des

(L.)

Sw.]

,Sp

orob

olus

spp.

Exp

erim

enta

lrun

off

chlo

rpyr

ifos

73–7

33�

g/L

noda

ta83

–98

wet

land

mes

ocos

ms,

66�

10so

ftru

sh(J

uncu

sef

fusu

sno

data

Moo

reet

al.

Mis

siss

ippi

L.)

,Lee

rsia

spp.

(200

2)E

xper

imen

talr

unof

fpa

rath

ion-

met

hyl

4–42

0�

g/L

�99

�99

wet

land

mes

ocos

ms,

50�

5.5

soft

rush

,Lee

rsia

spp.

�90

%to

xici

tySc

hulz

etal

.M

issi

ssip

pire

duct

ion,

mid

ge(2

003b

)(C

hiro

nom

ussp

p.)

insi

tubi

oass

ay,

redu

ced

effe

cts

onin

vert

ebra

tes

Exp

erim

enta

lrun

off

para

thio

n-m

ethy

l4–

420

�g/

L�

99�

99w

etla

ndm

esoc

osm

s,50

�5.

5so

ftru

sh,L

eers

iasp

p.�

95%

toxi

city

Schu

lzet

al.

Mis

siss

ippi

redu

ctio

nin

(200

3c)

labo

rato

ryex

pose

dam

phip

od(H

yale

lla

azte

ca)

Run

off

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.14

–0.8

�g/

L77

–93

�90

flow

-thr

ough

wet

land

,13

4�

36bu

lrus

h(T

ypha

cape

nsis

�90

%to

xici

tySc

hulz

and

Pea

llen

dosu

lfan

0.07

–0.2

�g/

L�

99�

90L

oure

nsR

iver

Roh

rb.)

,sho

reru

shre

duct

ion

(200

1)ch

lorp

yrifo

s0.

01–0

.03

�g/

L�

99�

99ca

tchm

ent,

Sout

h(J

uncu

skr

auss

iiC

hiro

nom

ussp

p.az

inph

os-m

ethy

l1.

2–43

.3�

g/kg

�99

�99

Afr

ica

Hoc

hst)

insi

tubi

oass

ayen

dosu

lfan

0.2–

31.4

�g/

kg�

99�

99pr

othi

ofos

0.8–

6�

g/kg

�99

�90

Run

off

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.2–

3.9

�g/

L�

99‡

noda

tare

tent

ion

pond

s,So

uth

noda

tano

data

appr

ox.4

0%to

xici

tySc

ott

etal

.en

dosu

lfan

0.03

–0.2

5�

g/L

‡�60

‡C

arol

ina

redu

ctio

n,sh

rim

p(1

999)

fenv

aler

ate

0.05

–0.9

�g/

L�

80‡

(Pal

aem

onet

espu

gio)

insi

tubi

oass

ayR

unof

fch

lorp

yrifo

s0.

08–1

.3�

g/L

�97

�97

flow

-thr

ough

wet

land

,13

4�

36bu

lrus

h,sh

ore

rush

�90

%to

xici

tyM

oore

etal

.2.

6–89

.4�

g/kg

�99

�99

Lou

rens

Riv

er,S

outh

redu

ctio

n(2

002)

Afr

ica

Chi

rono

mus

spp.

insi

tubi

oass

aySp

ray

drift

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.27

–0.5

1�

g/L

90.1

60.5

flow

-thr

ough

wet

land

,13

4�

36bu

lrus

h,sh

ore

rush

redu

ced

effe

cts

onSc

hulz

etal

.L

oure

nsR

iver

,Sou

thzo

opla

nkto

n(2

003a

)A

fric

aSp

ray

drift

azin

phos

-met

hyl

0.36

–0.8

7�

g/L

90.8

54.1

flow

-thr

ough

wet

land

,13

4�

36bu

lrus

h,sh

ore

rush

�90

%to

xici

tySc

hulz

etal

.L

oure

nsR

iver

,Sou

thre

duct

ion

(200

1c)

Afr

ica

Chi

rono

mus

spp.

insi

tubi

oass

ay

†R

efer

sto

the

appl

ied

amou

nt.

‡E

stim

ated

rete

ntio

nsi

nce

the

conc

entr

atio

nsre

fer

toa

catc

hmen

tw

ithou

tpo

nds,

whi

chw

asus

edfo

rco

mpa

riso

n.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


and nursery industry, have already started to adopt wet- with data from field studies under normal agricul-tural practice, if available, since effects are not al-lands to treat pesticide-contaminated water (Berghage

et al., 1999). In response to the historic losses of natural ways interpretable from laboratory results.• More wetland research is necessary to increase ourwetlands, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service has established a conservation practice standard understanding of the relevant chemical and biologi-cal processes and the long-term sustainability of(Code 656) relating to constructed wetlands and three

standards (Codes 657, 658, and 659) relating to the resto- these systems. Additionally, quantitative results(e.g., on necessary wetland length or effective plantration, creation, and enhancement of natural wetlands

(USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002). species) are needed to formulate guidelines for theconstruction and management of these wetlands.By establishing these practice standards, farmers and

other agricultural landowners are given instructions on • The definition and implementation of additionalrisk mitigation strategies and improved measureshow to develop and use natural and constructed wet-

lands as a best management practice to minimize non- of their mitigation capabilities might make it possi-ble to adapt the farming and pesticide applicationpoint-source pollution of water bodies.practice on a local level (e.g., to reduce or differenti-ate the distances between sprayed fields and surface

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE waters for specified compounds).RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

On the basis of the literature review presented here,ACKNOWLEDGMENTSthe following conclusions can be drawn and recommen-

I acknowledge involvement and support of numerous per-dations made with respect to future research.sons in my ecotoxicological research over the past 10 years

• Most of the exposure studies refer to runoff as a and more, namely Georg Ruppell, Adriaan J. Reinecke, BeateHelling, and the past and present members of the ecotoxicol-route of entry. There is a lack of data with respectogy groups at TU BS and University of Stellenbosch. Renateto surface water contamination by insecticides duePonikau and Geraldine Thiere provided invaluable help into spray drift, which is of particular importancethe data and literature survey. This manuscript benefited fromwith regard to the role of spray drift in regulatorycritical comments by Ann Thorson, James M. Dabrowski, andrisk assessment. Erin R. Bennett.

• The exposure data emphasizes the high risk to sur-face waters in small catchments. As a result, future

REFERENCESmonitoring programs should include catchments ofAdriaanse, P., R. Allen, V. Gouy, J. Hosang, T. Jarvis, M. Klein, R.small size, specifically with regard to recent legisla-

Layton, J. Linders, L. Schafer, L. Smeets, and D. Yon. 1997. Surfacetive concepts such as the European Water Frame-water models and EU registration of plant protection products.

work Directive and the U.S. total maximum daily Dok. 6476/VI/96. Final report of the work of the Regulatory Model-load (TMDL) concept. ling Working Group of Surface Water. Models of FOCUS (FOrum

for the Co-ordination of pesticide fate models and their USe).• More field studies using event-triggered samplingEuropean Commission, Brussels.design are necessary to provide a realistic picture of

Albanis, T.A., P.J. Pomonis, and A.T. Sdoukos. 1986. Organophospho-insecticide levels resulting from nonpoint-sources. rus and carbamates pesticide residues in the aquatic system of• Most of the insecticide records were made in run- Ioannina Basin and Kalamas River (Greece). Chemosphere 15:

1023–1034.ning water ecosystems, indicating their importanceAm, N.M., D.D. Nhan, V.V. Thuan, N.D. Cu, L.V. Dieu, and N.C.as receiving habitats. One potential reason might

Hoi. 1995. Evaluation of the level of organochlorinated pesticidesbe the relatively higher bank length for a river in contamination in environment of the Red River and its balat estu-comparison with the water volume; however, these ary. p. 1–12. In T.T. Minh and H.D. Luc (ed.) Distribution, fate

and effects of pesticides on biota in the tropical marine environ-aspects still need to be addressed. There remainsment. IAEA, Vienna.the question whether stagnant water bodies, which

Aquatic Effects Dialogue Group. 1992. Improving aquatic risk assess-play a major role in regulatory risk assessment, run ment under FIFRA. RESOLVE, Washington DC.the same risk of exposure under field conditions as Auerswald, K., and J. Haider. 1992. Eintrag von Agrochemikalien instreams or rivers. Oberflachengewasser durch Bodernerosion. Z. Kulturtech. Lande-

ntwicklung 33:222–229.• The low number of field studies that linked quanti-Aufseß, G., W. Beicht, H.D. Bourquin, E. Hantge, J. Heil, M.J. Muller,fied exposure to effects is remarkable. Whatever

H. Opfermann, J. Riemer, R.K. Zahn, and K.H. Zimmer. 1989.conclusions may be drawn from this fact in terms Untersuchungen zum Austrag von Pflanzenschutzmitteln und Nah-of regulatory risk assessment, the lack of field data rstoffen aus Rebflachen des Moseltals. p. 1–78. In DVWK (ed.)

Stoffbelastungen der Fließgewasserbiotope. Parey, Hamburg,means that there is also very little understandingBerlin.of how whole surface water ecosystems react to

Baker, J.L. 1983. Agricultural areas as nonpoint sources of pollution. p.chemical input. 275–310. In M.R. Overcash and J.M. Davidson (ed.) Environmental• For many insecticides that were detected frequently impact of nonpoint source pollution. Ann Arbor Sci., Ann

Arbor, MI.in field samples, knowledge of effects derived fromBaker, L.A. 1993. Introduction to nonpoint source pollution and wet-field studies is limited or depends only on results

land mitigation. p. 12–45. In R.K. Olson and K. Marshall (ed.)that are not easy to interpret. Created and natural wetlands for controlling nonpoint source pollu-• Generally, exposure and effect estimates in ecologi- tion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Bar-Ilan, I., S. Shmerkin, U. Mingelgrin, and D. Levanon. 2000. Surveycal risk assessment procedures should be compared

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


of pesticide distribution in upper Jordan basin. Water Air Soil agricultural drainage watersheds. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21:298–Pollut. 119:139–156. 308.

Battaglin, W., and J. Fairchild. 2002. Potential toxicity of pesticides Clark, J.R., P.W. Borthwick, L.R. Goodman, J.M. Patrick, E.M. Lores,measured in midwestern streams to aquatic organisms. Water Sci. and J.C. Moore. 1987. Comparison of laboratory toxicity test resultsTechnol. 45(9):95–102. with responses of estuarine animals exposed to fenthion in the

Baughman, D.S., D.W. Moore, and G.I. Scott. 1989. A comparison field. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:151–160.and evaluation of field and laboratory toxicity tests with fenvalerate Clark, J.R., M.A. Lewis, and A.S. Pait. 1993. Pesticide inputs andon an estuarine crustacean. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:417–429. risks in coastal wetlands. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:2225–2233.

Bergamaschi, B.A., K.M. Kuivila, and M.S. Fram. 2001. Pesticides Colborn, T., F.S. vom Saal, and A.M. Soto. 1993. Developmentalassociated with suspended sediments entering San Francisco Bay effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans.following the first major storm of water year 1996. Estuaries 24: Environ. Health Perspect. 101:378–384.368–380. Cole, S. 1998. The emergence of treatment wetlands. Environ. Sci.

Bergema, W.F., and H. Rombout. 1994. A field bioassay for side- Technol. 32:218A–223A.effects of insecticides with the larvae of Chaoborus crystallinus (De Committee for Integral Water Management/Committee for the En-Geer) (Diptera: Chaoboridae). Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Univ. forcement of the Water Pollution Act. 1995. 1992/1993 PesticideGent 59:357–367. report. Coordinating Committee for the Implementation of the

Berghage, R.D., E.P. Macneal, E.F. Wheeler, and W.H. Zachritz. Pollution of Surface Waters Act. Workgroup V. CIW/CUWVO,1999. “Green” water treatment for the green industries: Opportuni- Grevenhage, the Netherlands.ties for biofiltration of greenhouse and nursery irrigation water Connell, J.H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, orand runoff with constructed wetlands. HortScience 34:50–54. the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138.

Beyers, D.W., M.S. Farmer, and P.J. Sikoski. 1995. Effects of range- Cooke, A.S. 1981. Tadpoles as indicators of harmful levels of pollutionland aerial application of Sevin-4-oil on fish and aquatic inverte- in the field. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A 25:123–134.brate drift in the Little Missouri river, North Dakota. Arch. Envi- Cooper, C.M. 1987. Benthos in Bear Creek, Mississippi: Effects ofron. Contam. Toxicol. 28:27–34. habitat variation and agricultural sediments. J. Freshwater Ecol.

Bird, S.L., D.M. Esterly, and S.G. Perry. 1996. Off-target deposition 4:101–113.of pesticides from agricultural aerial spray applications. J. Environ. Cooper, C.M. 1990. Agriculture and water quality. p. 51–57. In Proc.Qual. 25:1095–1104. of the 16th Southern Soil Fertility Conf., Memphis, TN. Southern

Bishop, C.A., J. Struger, L.J. Shirose, L. Dunn, and G.D. Campbell. Soil Fertility Soc., Memphis, TN.2000. Contamination and wildlife communities in stormwater de- Cooper, C.M. 1991a. Insecticide concentrations in ecosystem compo-tention ponds in Guelph and the greater Toronto area, Ontario, nents of an intensively cultivated watershed in Mississippi. J. Fresh-1997 and 1998. Part II: Contamination and biological effects of water Ecol. 6:237–248.contamination. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 35:437–474. Cooper, C.M. 1991b. Persistent organochlorine and current use insec-Blommers, L.H.M. 1994. Integrated pest management in European ticide concentrations in major watershed components of Moonapple orchards. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 39:213–241. Lake, Mississippi, USA. Arch. Hydrobiol. 121:103–113.Bowles, R.G., and J.P.G. Webster. 1995. Some problems associated Cooper, C.M. 1993. Biological effects of agriculturally derived surface-with the analysis of the costs and benefits of pesticides. Crop

water pollutants on aquatic systems—A review. J. Environ. Qual.Prot. 14:593–600.22:402–408.Bradley, J.R., T.J. Sheets, and M.D. Jackson. 1972. DDT and toxa-

Cooper, C.M., and E.J. Bacon. 1980. Effects of suspended sedimentsphene movement in surface water from cotton plots. J. Environ.on primary productivity in Lake Chicot, Arkansas. p. 1357–1367.Qual. 1:102–105.In Surface-water impoundments. ASCE Symp. Proc., Minneapolis.Briggs, J.A., M.B. Riley, and T. Whitwell. 1998. Quantification andAm. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA.remediation of pesticides in runoff water from containerized plant

Cooper, C.M., F.E. Dendy, Jr., M.C. Henry, and J.C. Ritchie. 1987.production. J. Environ. Qual. 27:814–820.Residual pesticide concentrations in Bear Creek, Mississippi, 1976Brix, H. 1994. Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control:to 1979. J. Environ. Qual. 16:69–72.Historical development, present status, and future perspectives.

Cooper, C.M., and S.S. Knight. 1986. Status report: Ecological as-Water Sci. Technol. 30(8):209–223.pects—Demonstration erosion control project in the Yazoo basin.Brock, T.C.M., R.P.A. Van Wijngaarden, and G.J. Van Geest. 2000.p. 36–43. Proc. Am. Soc. Annual Meeting Mississippi Chapter. Am.Ecological risk of pesticides in freshwater ecosystems. Part 2: Insec-Fisheries Soc., Mississippi Chapter, Starkville.ticides. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, the Neth-

Cooper, C.M., and S.S. Knight. 1987. Residual pesticides in fisheserlands.from Lake Chicot, Arkansas. Proc. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 41:26–28.Burdick, G.E., H.J. Dean, E.J. Harris, J. Skea, C. Frisa, and C.

Cooper, C.M., and W.M. Lipe. 1992. Water quality and agriculture:Sweeney. 1968. Methoxychlor as a blackfly larvicide, persistenceMississippi experiences. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47:220–223.of its residues in fish and its effects on stream arthropods. Fish.

Cooper, C.M., F.D. Shields, Jr., and S.S. Knight. 1993. Beyond theGame J. 15:121–142.fence: Implications of agricultural erosion for aquatic ecosystems.Cairns, J., Jr., P.V. McCormick, and B.R. Niederlehner. 1994. Bioassayp. 596–605. In Advances in hydro-science and -engineering. Proc.and field assessment of pollutant effects. Adv. Limnol. 42:267–282.of the 1st Int. Conf. on Hydro-Science and Hydro-Engineering,California Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. A compilationCCHE, Univ. of Mississippi. Int. Assoc. of Hydraulic Eng. andof water quality goals. CEPA, Regional Water Quality ControlRes., Oxford, MS.Board, Sacramento.

Cooper, C.M., S. Testa, S.S. Knight, and J.J. Bowen. 1995. AssessmentCanadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2001. Canadianof a constructed bulrush wetland for treatment of cattle waste:water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Summary1991–1994. Agric. Res. Serv., Oxford, MS.table. p. 1–12. In Canadian environmental quality guidelines.

Cope, O.B. 1966. Contamination of the freshwater ecosystem by pesti-CCME, Winnipeg, MB.cides. J. Appl. Ecol. 3:33–44.Caruso, B.S. 2000. Comparative analysis of New Zealand and US

Crane, M., P. Delaney, C. Mainstone, and S. Clarke. 1995a. Measure-approaches for agricultural nonpoint source pollution manage-ment by in situ bioassay of water quality in an agricultural catch-ment. Environ. Manage. (NY) 25:9–22.ment. Water Res. 29:2441–2448.Castillo, L.E., E. de la Cruz, and C. Ruepert. 1997. Ecotoxicology

Crane, M., P. Delaney, S. Watson, P. Parker, and C. Walker. 1995b.and pesticides in tropical aquatic ecosystems of Central America.The effect of malathion 60 on Gammarus pulex (L.) below water-Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16:41–51.cress beds. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:1181–1188.Castillo, L.E., C. Ruepert, and E. Solis. 2000. Pesticide residues in

Croll, B.T. 1969. Organo-chlorine insecticides in water. Water Treatm.the aquatic environment of banana plantation areas in the NorthExam. 18:255–274.Atlantic zone of Costa Rica. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19:1942–1950.

Crosa, G., L. Yameogo, D. Calamari, and J.M. Hougard. 1998. LongChen, W., P. Hertl, S. Chen, and D. Tierney. 2002. A pesticide surfacewater mobility index and its relationship with concentrations in term quantitative ecological assessment of insecticides treatments

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


in four African rivers: A methodological approach. Chemo- ing of the aquatic environment in England and Wales. EnvironmentAgency, Bristol, UK.sphere 37:2847–2858.

Epstein, L., S. Bassein, F.G. Zalom, and L.R. Wilhoit. 2001. ChangesCrossland, N.O., S.W. Shires, and D. Bennett. 1982. Aquatic toxicol-in pest management practice in almond orchards during the rainyogy of cypermethrin. 3. Fate and biological effects of spray driftseason in California, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83:111–120.deposits in fresh water adjacent to agricultural land. Aquat. Tox-

Ernst, W.R., P. Jonah, K. Doe, G. Julien, and P. Hennigar. 1991.icol. 2:253–270.Toxicity to aquatic organisms of off-target deposition of endosulfanCuffney, T.F., J.B. Wallace, and J.R. Webster. 1984. Pesticide manipu-applied by aircraft. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:103–114.lation of a headwater stream: Invertebrate responses and their

European Union. 2000. European Water Directive 2000//EG 97/0067,significance for ecosystem processes. Freshwater Invertebr. Biol.C5-0347/00. EU, Brussels.3:153–171.

Falconer, K.E. 1998. Managing diffuse environmental contaminationDabrowski, J.M., S.K.C. Peall, A.J. Reinecke, M. Liess, and R. Schulz.from agricultural pesticides: An economic perspective on issues2002a. Runoff-related pesticide input into the Lourens River, Southand policy options, with particular reference to Europe. Agric.Africa: Basic data for exposure assessment and risk mitigation atEcosyst. Environ. 69:37–54.the catchment scale. Water Air Soil Pollut. 135:265–283.

Fawcett, R.S., B.R. Christensen, and D.P. Tierney. 1994. The impactDabrowski, J.M., S.K.C. Peall, A. van Niekerk, A.J. Reinecke, J.A.of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into surface water: ADay, and R. Schulz. 2002b. Predicting runoff induced pesticidereview and analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv. 49:126–135.input in agricultural sub-catchment surface waters: Linking land

Federal Environmental Agency (ed.) 1999. Wasserbeschaffenheit inuse and contamination. Water Res. 36:4975–4984.ausgewaehlten Fliessgewaessern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland-Dabrowski, J.M., and R. Schulz. 2003. Predicted and measured levelsDatensammlung organische Umweltchemikalien (1993-1997). Fed-of azinphosmethyl in the Lourens River, South Africa: Comparisoneral Environmental Agency (UBA), Berlin.of runoff and spray drift. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22:494–500.

Finley, D.B., G.I. Scott, J.W. Daugomah, S.L. Layman, L. Reed,Dance, K.W., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1980. Some effects of agriculturalM. Sanders, S.K. Sivertsen, and E.D. Strozier. 1999. Case study:land use on stream insect communities. Environ. Pollut. Ser. AEcotoxicological assessment of urban and agricultural nonpoint22:19–28.source runoff effects on the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. p.Daniels, W.M., W.A. House, J.E. Rae, and A. Parker. 2000. The243–273. In M.A. Lewis, F.L. Mayer, R.L. Powell, M.K. Nelson,distribution of micro-organic contaminants in river bed-sedimentS.I. Klaine, M.G. Henry, and G.W. Dickson (ed.) Ecotoxicologycores. Sci. Total Environ. 253:81–92.and risk assessment for wetlands. Soc. of Environ. Toxicol. andDavies, P.E., and L.S.J. Cook. 1993. Catastrophic macroinvertebrateChem. (SETAC), Pensacola, FL.drift and sublethal effects on brown trout, Salmo trutta, caused by

Flannagan, J.F. 1973. Field and laboratory studies on the effect ofcypermethrin spraying on a Tasmanian stream. Aquat. Toxicol.exposure to fenitrothion on freshwater aquatic invertebrates. Ma-27:201–224.nit. Entomol. 7:15–25.deJong, F.M.W., and W.F. Bergema. 1994. Field bioassays for side- Flannagan, J.F., B.E. Townsend, B.G.E. De March, M.K. Friesen,effects of pesticides. Centre of Environ. Sci., Leiden, the Neth- and S.L. Leonhard. 1979. The effects of an experimental injectionerlands. of methoxychlor on aquatic invertebrates: Accumulation, standingDendy, F.E. 1983. Runoff from a small watershed—A selected storm. crop, and drift. Can. Entomol. 111:73–89.

J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 28:1–7. Fleming, W.J. 1995. Freshwater mussel die-off attributed to anticholin-Dermott, R.N., and H.J. Spence. 1984. Changes in population and esterase poisoning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:877–879.

drift of stream invertebrates following lampricide treatment. Can. Flury, M. 1996. Experimental evidence of transport of pesticidesJ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 14:1695–1701. through field soils—A review. J. Environ. Qual. 25:25–45.

De Snoo, G.R. 1999. Unsprayed field margins: Effects on environ- Frank, R., H.E. Braun, B.D. Ripley, and B.S. Clegg. 1990. Contamina-ment, biodiversity and agricultural practice. Landscape Urban tion of rural ponds with pesticide, 1971–85, Ontario, Canada. Bull.Planning 46:151–160. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 44:401–409.

De Snoo, G.R., and P.J. De Wit. 1998. Buffer zones for reducing Frank, R., H.E. Braun, M. Van Hove Holdrinet, G.J. Sirons, and B.D.pesticide drift to ditches and risks to aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicol. Ripley. 1982. Agriculture and water quality in the Canadian GreatEnviron. Saf. 41:112–118. Lakes basin. V. Pesticide use in 11 agricultural watersheds and

Dieter, C.D., W.G. Duffy, and L.D. Flake. 1996. The effect of phorate presence in stream water, 1975–1977. J. Environ. Qual. 11:497–505.on wetland macroinvertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15:308– Frank, R., B.S. Clegg, B.D. Ripley, and H.E. Braun. 1987a. Investiga-312. tions of pesticide contaminations in rural wells, 1979–1984, Ontario,

Dietz, A.C., and J.L. Schnoor. 2001. Advances in phytoremediation. Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:9–22.Environ. Health Perspect. 109:163–167. Frank, R., B.D. Ripley, H.E. Braun, B.S. Clegg, R. Johnston, and

Domagalski, J. 1996. Occurrence of dicofol in the San Joaquin River, T.J. O’Neill. 1987b. Survey of farm wells for pesticides residues,California. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 57:284–291. southern Ontario, Canada 1981–1982, 1984. Arch. Environ. Con-

Domagalski, J. 1997. Results of a prototype surface water network tam. Toxicol. 16:1–8.design for pesticides developed for the San Joaquin River basin, Freeden, F.J.H. 1974. Tests with single injections of methoxychlorCalifornia. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 192:33–50. blackfly (Diptera: Simuliidae) larvicides in large rivers. Can. Ento-

Domagalski, J.L., N.M. Dubrovsky, and C.R. Kratzer. 1997. Pesticides mol. 106:285–305.in the San Joaquin River, California: Inputs from the dormant Freeden, F.J.H. 1975. Effects of a single injection of methoxychlorsprayed orchards. J. Environ. Qual. 26:454–465. blackfly larvicide on insect larvae in a 161 km (100 mile) section

Domagalski, J.L., and K.M. Kuivila. 1993. Distributions of pesticides of the North Saskatchewan River. Can. Entomol. 107:807–817.and organic contaminants between water and suspended sediment, Gallivan, G.J., G.A. Surgeoner, and J. Kovach. 2001. Pesticide riskSan Francisco Bay, California. Estuaries 16:416–426. reduction on crops in the province of Ontario. J. Environ. Qual.

Dosdall, L.M., and D.M. Lehmkuhl. 1989. Drift of aquatic insects 30:798–813.following methoxychlor treatment of the Saskatchewan River sys- Gangbazo, G., D. Cluis, and C. Bernard. 1999. Knowledge acquiredtem, Canada. Can. Entomol. 121:1077–1096. on agricultural nonpoint pollution in Quebec—1993–1998: Analysis

Drummond, C.J., and R. Lawton. 1995. Management practices to and perspectives. Vecteur Environ. 32:36–45.reduce pesticide movement to water. BCPC Monogr. 62:407–414. Ganzelmeier, H., D. Rautmann, R. Spangenberg, M. Streloke, M.

Edwards, C.A. 1973. Nature and origin of pollution of aquatic systems Herrmann, H.-J. Wenzelburger, and H.-F. Walter. 1995. Studiesby pesticides. p. 11–38. In C.A. Edwards (ed.) Environmental pollu- of the spray drift of plant protection products. Mitteilungen austion by pesticides. Plenum Press, London. der Biologischen Bundesanstalt fur Land-und Forstwirtschaft.

Eidt, D.C. 1975. The effects of fenitrothion from large-scale forest Blackwell Sci. Publ., Berlin.spraying on benthos in New Brunswick headwaters streams. Can. Garms, R. 1961. Biozonotische Untersuchungen an Entwasserungs-Entomol. 107:743–760. graben in Flußmarschen des Elbe-Astuars. Arch. Hydrobiol.

26:344–462.Environment Agency. 2000. Pesticides 2000: A summary of monitor-

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Ghadiri, H., and C.W. Rose. 1991. Sorbed chemical transport in over- tions on the aquatic community in orchard ditches near Hamburg,Germany. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:393–426.land flow: 1. A nutrient and pesticide enrichment mechanism. J.

Environ. Qual. 20:628–634. Herzel, F. 1971. Organochlorine insecticides in surface waters in Ger-many—1970 and 1971. Pestic. Monit. J 6:179–187.Giesy, J.P., K.R. Solomon, J.R. Coats, K.R. Dixon, J.M. Giddings,

and E.E. Kenaga. 1999. Chlorpyrifos: Ecological risk assessment Hewitt, A.J. 2000. Spray drift: Impact of requirements to protect theenvironment. Crop Prot. 19:623–627.in North American aquatic environments. Rev. Environ. Cont.

Toxicol. 1–131. Higgins, M.J., C.A. Rock, R. Bouchard, and B. Wengrezynek. 1993.Controlling agricultural runoff by use of constructed wetlands. p.Gomme, J.W., S. Shurvell, S.M. Hennings, and L. Clark. 1991. Hydrol-

ogy of pesticides in a chalk catchment—Surface waters. J. Inst. 359–367. In G.A. Moshiri (ed.) Constructed wetlands for waterquality improvement. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Water Environ. Manage. 5:546–553.

Gorbach, S., R. Haarring, W. Knauf, and H.-J. Werner. 1971. Residue Hoffman, E.R., and S. Fisher. 1994. Comparison of a field and labora-tory-derived population of Chironomus riparius (Diptera, Chiro-analyses in the water system of East-Java (River Brantas, ponds,

sea-water) after continued large-scale application of thiodan in nomidae)—Biochemical and fitness evidence for population diver-gence. J. Econ. Entomol. 87:318–325.rice. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:40–47.

Gray, K.R., A.J. Biddlestone, E. Job, and E. Galanos. 1990. The use House, W.A., I.S. Farr, and D.R. Orr. and Z. Ou. 1991. The occurrenceof synthetic pyrethroid and selected organochlorine pesticides inof reed beds for the treatment of agricultural effluents. p. 333–346.

In P.F. Cooper and B.C. Findlater (ed.) Constructed wetlands in river sediments. BCPC Monogr. 47:183–192.House, W.A., J.L.A. Long, J. Rae, A. Parker, and D.R. Orr. 2000.water pollution control. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Greichus, Y.A., A. Greichus, B.D. Amman, D.J. Call, D.C.D. Ham- Occurrence and mobility of the insecticide permethrin in rivers inthe Southern Humber catchment, UK. Pestic. Manage. Sci. 56:597–man, and R.M. Pott. 1977. Insecticides polychlorinated biphenyls

and metals in african lake ecosystems. I. Hartbeespoort Dam, 606.House, W.A., J.E. Rae, and R.T. Kimblin. 1992. Source-sedimentTransvaal and Voelvlei Dam, Cape Province, Republic of South

Africa. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:371–383. controls on the riverine transport of pesticides. p. 865–870. In CropProtection Conf.: Pests and Diseases, Brighton, UK. 19–22 Nov.Greve, P.A. 1972. Potentially hazardous substances in surface waters.

Sci. Total Environ. 1:173–180. 1990. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, UK.Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing. 1987. Pollution fromGriffith, M.B., E.M. Barrows, and S.A. Perry. 1996. Effects of aerial

application of diflubenzuron on emergence and flight of adult nonpoint sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:737–742.Hunt, J.W., B.S. Anderson, B.M. Phillips, R.S. Tjeerdema, H.M. Puck-aquatic insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 89:442–446.

Groenendijk, P., J.W.H. van der Kolk, and K.Z. Travis. 1994. Predic- ett, and V. deVlaming. 1999. Patterns of aquatic toxicity in anagriculturally dominated coastal watershed in California. Agric.tion of exposure concentration in surface waters. p. 105–125. In

I.R. Hill, F. Heimbach, P. Leeuwangh, and P. Matthiessen (ed.) Ecosyst. Environ. 75:75–91.Hunt, J.W., B.S. Anderson, B.M. Phillips, P.N. Nicely, R.S. Tjeerdema,Freshwater field tests for hazard assessment of chemicals. Lewis

Publ., Boca Raton, FL. H.M. Puckett, M. Stephenson, K. Worcester, and V. De Vlaming.2003. Ambient toxicity due to chlorpyrifos and diazinon in a centralGruber, S.J., and M.D. Munn. 1998. Organophosphate and carbamate

insecticides in agricultural waters and cholinetserase (ChE) inhibi- California coastal watershed. Environ. Monit. Assess. 82:83–112.Hynes, H.B.N., and R.R. Wallace. 1975. The catastrophic drift oftion in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Arch. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 35:391–396. stream insects after treatment with methoxychlor (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-methoxyphenyl ethane). Environ. Pollut. (1970–1979) 8:Gueune, Y., and G. Winnett. 1995. Lindane transport in fresh water

from wetlands of Brittany to the salt water of the Bay of Mont St. 255–269.Iwakuma, T., H. Shiraishi, S. Nohara, and K. Takamura. 1993. RunoffMichel (France). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55:603–609.

Hand, L.H., S.F. Kuet, M.C.G. Lane, S.J. Maund, J.S. Warinton, and properties and change in concentrations of agricultural pesticidesin a river system during a rice cultivation period. ChemosphereI.R. Hill. 2001. Influences of aquatic plants on the fate of the

pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin in aquatic environments. 27:677–691.Jackson, M.D., T.J. Sheets, and C.L. Moffett. 1974. Persistence andEnviron. Toxicol. Chem. 20:1740–1745.

Harris, G.L., R.L. Jones, J.A. Catt, D.J. Mason, and D.J. Arnold. movement of BHC in a watershed, Mount Mitchell State Park,North Carolina 1967–72. Pestic. Monit. J 8:202–208.1995. Influence of agricultural management and pesticide sorption

on losses to surface waters. BCPC Monogr. 62:304–311. Jacobi, G.Z. 1977. Containers for observing mortality of benthic mac-roinvertebrates during antimycin treatment of a stream. Prog. Fish-Harris, M.L., C.A. Bishop, J. Struger, M.R. Van Den Heuvel, G.J.

Van Der Kraak, D.G. Dixon, B. Ripley, and J.P. Bogart. 1998. Cult. 39:103–104.Jergentz, S., H. Mugni, C. Bonetto, and R. Schulz. 2004. Runoff-The functional integrity of northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens)

and green frog (Rana clamitans) populations in orchard wetlands: related endosulfan contamination and aquatic macroinvertebrateresponse in rural basins near Buenos Aires, Argentina. Arch. Envi-I. Genetics, physiology, and biochemistry of breeding adults and

young-of-the-year. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:1338–1350. ron. Contam. Toxicol. (in press).Kadlec, R.H., and D.L. Hey. 1994. Constructed wetlands for riverHart, A. (ed.) 2001. Probabilistic risk assessment for pesticides in

Europe. Central Sci. Lab., York, UK. water quality improvement. Water Sci. Technol. 29(4):159–168.Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment wetlands. CRC Press,Hatakeyama, S., H. Shiraishi, and N. Kobayashi. 1990. Effects of aerial

spraying of insecticides on nontarget macrobenthos in a mountain Boca Raton, FL.Karen, D.J., B.M. Joab, J.M. Wallin, and K.A. Johnson. 1998. Parti-stream. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 19:254–270.

Hatakeyama, S., H. Shiraishi, and Y. Sugaya. 1991. Monitoring of the tioning of chlorpyrifos between water and an aquatic macrophyte(Elodea densa). Chemosphere 37:1579–1586.overall pesticide toxicity of river water to aquatic organisms using

a freshwater shrimp, Paratya compressa improvisa. Chemosphere Kedwards, T.J., S.J. Maund, and P.F. Chapman. 1999. Communitylevel analysis of ecotoxicological field studies: I. Biological monitor-22:229–235.

Hatakeyama, S., and N. Yokoyama. 1997. Correlation between overall ing. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:149–157.Kikuchi, M., Y. Sasaki, and M. Bakabayashi. 1999. Screening of organo-pesticide effects monitored by shrimp mortality test and change in

macrobenthic fauna in a river. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 36:148–161. phoshates insecticide pollution in water by using Daphnia magna.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 19:239–245.Haufe, W.O., K.R. Depner, and W.A. Charnetzki. 1980. Impact of

methoxychlor on drifting aquatic invertebrates. p. 159–168. In W.O. Kirby-Smith, W.W., S.J. Eisenreich, J.T. Howe, and R.A. Luettich,Jr. 1992. The effects in estuaries of pesticide runoff from adjacentHaufe (ed.) Control of blackflies in the Athabasca River. Alberta

Environment, Edmonton, AB, Canada. farm lands. Final project report. USEPA, Gulf Breeze, FL.Kirby-Smith, W.W., S.P. Thompson, and R.B. Forward, Jr. 1989. UseHeadley, J.V., J. Gandrass, J. Kuballa, K.M. Peru, and Y. Gong. 1998.

Rates of sorption and partitioning of contaminants in river biofilm. of grass shrimp (Paleomonetes pugio) larvae in field bioassays ofthe effects of agricultural runoff into estuaries. p. 29–36. In D.L.Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:3968–3973.

Heckman, C.W. 1981. Long-term effects of intensive pesticide applica- Weigmann (ed.) Pesticides in terrestrial and aquatic environments:

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Proceedings of a national research conference. Virginia Water Re- nings, J.A. Gale, and J. Spooner. 1997. Nonpoint sources. WaterEnviron. Res. 69:844–860.sour. Res. Center, Blacksburg.

Koeman, J.H. 1982. Ecotoxicological evaluation: The eco-side of the Loague, K., D.L. Corwin, and T.R. Ellsworth. 1998. The challenge ofpredicting nonpoint source pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:problem. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 6:358–362.

Kreuger, J. 1995. Monitoring of pesticides in subsurface and surface 130–133.Luckeydoo, L.M., N.R. Fausey, L.C. Brown, and C.B. Davis. 2002.water within an agricultural catchment in southern Sweden. BCPC

Monogr. 62:81–86. Early development of vascular vegetation of constructed wetlandsin northwest Ohio receiving agricultural waters. Agric. Ecosyst.Kreuger, J. 1998. Pesticides in stream water within an agricultural

catchment in southern Sweden, 1990–1996. Sci. Total Environ. Environ. 88:89–94.Lugthart, G.J., and J.B. Wallace. 1992. Effects of disturbance on216:227–251.

Kreuger, J., M. Peterson, and E. Lundgren. 1999. Agricultural inputs benthic functional structure and production in mountain streams.J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 11:138–164.of pesticide residues to stream and pond sediments in a small

catchment in southern Sweden. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Lugthart, G.J., J.B. Wallace, and A.D. Huryn. 1990. Secondary pro-duction of chironomid communities in insecticide-treated and un-62:55–62.

Kreuger, J.K., and N. Brink. 1988. Losses of pesticides from agricul- treated headwater streams. Freshwater Biol. 24:417–428.Lundbergh, I., J. Kreuger, and A. Johnson. 1995. Pesticides in surfaceture. p. 101–112. In Pesticides: Food and environmental implica-

tions. Int. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. waters. Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, France.Lutz, W. 1984. Calculation of stormwater discharge using catchmentKreutzweiser, D.P., and P.K. Sibley. 1991. Invertebrate drift in a

headwater stream treated with permethrin. Arch. Environ. Con- variables. (In German.) Inst. of Hydrol. and Water Res., Univ. ofKarlsruhe, Germany.tam. Toxicol. 20:330–336.

Kuhr, R.J., A.C. Davis, and J.B. Bourke. 1974. DDT residues in soil, Madden, C.P., P.J. Suter, B.C. Nicholson, and A.D. Austin. 1992.Deformities in chironomid larvae as indicators of pollution (pesti-water, and fauna from New York apple orchards. Pestic. Monit.

J 7:200–207. cide) stress. Neth. J. Aquat. Ecol. 26:551–557.Mainstone, C.P., and K. Schofield. 1996. Agricultural managementKuivila, K.M., and C.G. Foe. 1995. Concentration, transport and bio-

logical effects of dormant spray pesticides in the San Francisco for nonpoint pollution control, with particular reference to the UK.Eur. Water Pollut. Control 6:21–29.Estuary, California. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:1141–1150.

Lahr, J. 1998. An ecological assessment of the hazard of eight insecti- Maniak, U. 1992. Regionalization of parameters for stormwater flowcurves. Communications of the Commission for Water. Germancides used in desert locust control, to invertebrates in temporary

ponds in the Sahel. Aquat. Ecol. 32:153–162. Soc. for the Advancement of Sci., Bonn.Matthews, G.A. 1994. Pesticide application in relation to integratedLarson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and R.J. Gilliom. 1999. Pesticides in streams

of the United States: Initial results from the national water-quality pest management. Insect Sci. Its Appl. 15:599–604.Matthiessen, P., D. Sheahan, R. Harrison, M. Kirby, R. Rycroft, A.assessment program. CA-USGS WRIR 98-4222. U.S. Geol. Survey,

Sacramento, CA. Turnbull, C. Volkner, and R. Williams. 1995. Use of a Gammaruspulex bioassay to measure the effects of transient carbofuran runoffLenat, D.R., and J.K. Crawford. 1994. Effects of land use on water

quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont from farmland. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 30:111–119.Meulemann, A.F.M., B. Beltman, and H. De Bruin. 1990. The use ofstreams. Hydrobiologia 294:185–199.

Le Noir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, and J.N. vegetated ditches for water quality improvement; a tool for natureconservation in wetland areas. p. 599–602. In P.F. Cooper and B.C.Seiber. 1999. Summertime transport of current-use pesticides from

California’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Montain Range, Findlater (ed.) Constructed wetlands in water pollution control.Pergamon Press, Oxford.USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:2715–2722.

Leonard, A.W., R.V. Hyne, R.P. Lim, and J.C. Chapman. 1999. Effect Miles, C.J., and R.J. Pfeuffer. 1997. Pesticides in canals of southFlorida. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 32:337–345.of endosulfan runoff from cotton fields on macroinvertebrates in

the Namoi River. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 42:125–134. Miles, J.R.W. 1976. Insecticide residues on stream sediments in On-tario, Canada. Pestic. Monit. J 10:87–91.Leonard, A.W., R.V. Hyne, R.P. Lim, K.A. Leigh, J. Le, and R.

Beckett. 2001. Fate and toxicity of endosulfan in Namoi River Miles, J.R.W., and C.R. Harris. 1971. Insecticide residues in a streamand a controlled drainage system in agricultural areas in southwest-water and bottom sediment. J. Environ. Qual. 30:750–759.

Leonard, A.W., R.V. Hyne, R.P. Lim, F. Pablo, and P.J. Van den ern Ontario, 1970. Pestic. Monit. J 5:289–294.Miles, J.R.W., and C.R. Harris. 1973. Organochlorine insecticide resi-Brink. 2000. Riverine endosulfan concentrations in the Namoi

River, Australia: Link to cotton field runoff and macroinvertebrate dues in streams draining agricultural, urban-agricultural, and resortareas of Ontario, Canada. Pestic. Monit. J 6:363–368.population densities. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19:1540–1551.

Leonard, R.A. 1990. Movement of pesticides into surface waters. p. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1999. Local environmen-tal risk assessments for pesticides—A practical guide. MAFF,303–349. In H.H. Cheng (ed.) Pesticides in the soil environment:

Processes, impacts, and modeling. SSSA, Madison, WI. London.Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Rein-Lewis, M.A., F.L. Mayer, R.L. Powell, M.K. Nelson, S.I. Klaine, M.G.

Henry, and G.W. Dickson (ed.) 1999. Ecotoxicology and risk assess- hold, New York.Mogensen, B.B., and N.H. Spliid. 1995. Pesticides in Danish water-ment for wetlands. Soc. of Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. (SETAC),

Pensacola, FL. courses: Occurrence and effects. Chemosphere 31:3977–3990.Moore, M.T., E.R. Bennett, C.M. Cooper, S. Smith, Jr., F.D. Shields,Liess, M. 1994. Pesticide impact on macroinvertebrate communities

of running waters in agricultural ecosystems. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor. Jr., C.D. Milam, and J.L. Farris. 2001. Transport and fate of atrazineand lambda-cyhalothrin in agricultural drainage ditches: A caseAngew. Limnol. 22:2060–2062.

Liess, M., and R. Schulz. 1999. Linking insecticide contamination and study for mitigation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 87:309–314.Moore, M.T., J.H. Rodgers, Jr., C.M. Cooper, and S. Smith. 2000.population response in an agricultural stream. Environ. Toxicol.

Chem. 18:1948–1955. Constructed wetlands for mitigation of atrazine-associated agricul-tural runoff. Environ. Pollut. 110:393–399.Liess, M., and R. Schulz. 2000. Sampling methods in surface waters.

p. 1–24. In L.M.L. Nollet (ed.) Handbook of water analysis. Marcel Moore, M.T., R. Schulz, C.M. Cooper, S. Smith, Jr., and J.H. Rodgers,Jr. 2002. Mitigation of chlorpyrifos runoff using constructed wet-Dekker, New York.

Liess, M., R. Schulz, M.H.-D. Liess, B. Rother, and R. Kreuzig. 1999. lands. Chemosphere 46:827–835.Muralidharan, S. 2000. Organochlorine residues in the waters of Keo-Determination of insecticide contamination in agricultural head-

water streams. Water Res. 33:239–247. ladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Bull. Environ. Contam.Toxicol. 65:35–41.Liess, M., R. Schulz, and M. Neumann. 1996. A method for monitoring

pesticides bound to suspended particles in small streams. Chemo- Muschal, M. 1998. Central and north west regions water quality pro-gram. 1997/98 Report on pesticides monitoring. CNR98.038. Dep.sphere 32:1963–1969.

Line, D.E., D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, R.A. McLaughlin, G.D. Jen- of Land and Water Conserv., Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 1997. National sp.: Field and laboratory studies. Arch. Environ. Contam. Tox-pesticide use database. NCFAP, Washington, DC. icol. 41:325–332.

Nicholson, H.P., H.J. Webb, G.J. Lauer, R.E. O’Brien, A.R. Grzenda, Schlichtig, B., E. Schule, and U. Rott. 2001. Eintrag von Pflanzenschutz-and D.W. Shanklin. 1962. Insecticide contamination in a farm pond. mitteln in die Seefelder Aach. Wasser Abfall 3:1–8.Part I: Origin and duration. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 91:213–217. Scholes, L., R.B.E. Shutes, D.M. Revitt, M. Forshaw, and D. Purchase.

Osterkamp, S., U. Lorenz, and M. Schirmer. 1999. Constructed wet- 1998. The treatment of metals in urban runoff by constructed wet-lands for treatment of polluted road runoff. Limnologica 29:93–102. lands. Sci. Total Environ. 214:211–219.

Patty, L., J.J. Gril, B. Real, and C. Guyot. 1995. Grassed buffer strips Schreiber, J.D., S. Smith, Jr., and C.M. Cooper. 1996. The occurrence,to reduce herbicide concentration in runoff—Preliminary study in distribution, and remediation of transient pollution events in ag-western France. BCPC Monogr. 62:397–405. ricultural and silvicultural environments. Water Sci. Technol.

Patty, L., B. Real, and J.J. Gril. 1997. The use of grassed buffer strips 33(2):17–26.to remove pesticides, nitrate and soluble phosphorus compounds Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins, C.W. Mize,from runoff water. Pestic. Sci. 49:243–251. and M.L. Thompson. 1995. Design and placement of a multi-species

Payne, N.J., B.V. Helson, K.M.S. Sundaram, and R.A. Flemming. riparian buffer strip system. Agrofor. Syst. 29:201–206.1988. Estimating buffer zone width for pesticide application. Pestic. Schulz, R. 2001a. Comparison of spraydrift- and runoff-related inputSci. 24:147–161. of azinphos-methyl and endosulfan from fruit orchards into the

Pereira, W., J.L. Domagalski, F.D. Hostettler, L.R. Brown, and J.B. Lourens River, South Africa. Chemosphere 45:543–551.Rapp. 1996. Occurrence and accumulation of pesticides and organic Schulz, R. 2001b. Rainfall-induced sediment and pesticide input fromcontaminants in river sediment, water and clam tissues from the orchards into the Lourens River, Western Cape, South Africa:San Joaquin River and tributaries, California. Environ. Toxicol. Importance of a single event. Water Res. 35:1869–1876.Chem. 15:172–180. Schulz, R. 2003. Using a freshwater amphipod in situ bioassay as a

Poirier, D.G., and G.A. Surgeoner. 1988. Evaluation of a field bioassay sensitive tool to detect pesticide effects in the field. Environ. Tox-technique to predict the impact of aerial applications of forestry icol. Chem. 22:1172–1176.insecticides on stream invertebrates. Can. Entomol. 120:627–638. Schulz, R., C. Hahn, E.R. Bennett, J.M. Dabrowski, G. Thiere, and

Pollero, R.G., R. Goyena, M. Siquiroff, and R. Tumino. 1976. Removal S.K.C. Peall. 2003a. Fate and effects of azinphos-methyl in a flow-of pesticides in water of Rio de la Plata. Bull. Environ. Contam. through wetland in South Africa. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:2139–Toxicol. 15:617–622. 2144.

Ramesh, A., S. Tanabe, H. Murase, A.N. Subramanian, and R. Tatsu- Schulz, R., M. Hauschild, M. Ebeling, J. Nanko-Drees, J. Wogram,kawa. 1991. Distribution and behavior of persistent organochlorine and M. Liess. 1998. A qualitative field method for monitoringinsecticides in paddy soil and sediments in the tropical environ- pesticides in the edge-of-field runoff. Chemosphere 36:3071–3082.ment—A case study in South India. Environ. Pollut. 74:293–308. Schulz, R., and M. Liess. 1999a. A field study of the effects of agricul-

Rautmann, D., M. Streloke, and R. Winkler. 2001. New basic drift turally derived insecticide input on stream macroinvertebrate dy-values in the authorization procedure for plant protection products. namics. Aquat. Toxicol. 46:155–176.p. 133–141. In R. Forster and M. Streloke (ed.) Workshop on Schulz, R., and M. Liess. 1999b. Validity and ecological relevance ofrisk assessment and risk mitigation measures in the context of the an active in situ bioassay using Gammarus pulex and Limnephilusauthorization of plant protection products. Paul Parey, Berlin.lunatus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:2243–2250.Richard, J.J., G.A. Junk, M.J. Avery, N.L. Nehring, J.S. Fritz, and H.J.

Schulz, R., M.T. Moore, E.R. Bennett, J.L. Farris, S. Smith, Jr., andSvec. 1975. Analysis of various Iowa waters for selected pesticides:C.M. Cooper. 2003b. Methyl-parathion toxicity in vegetated andAtrazine, DDE and dieldrin. Pestic. Monit. J. 9:117.non-vegetated wetland mesocosms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22:1262–Richards, R.P., and D.B. Baker. 1993. Pesticide concentration patterns1268.in agricultural drainage networks in the Lake Erin basin. Environ.

Schulz, R., M.T. Moore, E.R. Bennett, C.D. Milam, J.L. Bouldin, J.L.Toxicol. Chem. 12:13–26.Farris, S. Smith, Jr., and C.M. Cooper. 2003c. Acute toxicity ofRodgers, J.H., Jr., G.W. Dickson, T. Dillon, P.B. Dorn, J.E. Farmer,methyl-parathion in wetland mesocosms: Assessing the influenceR.A. Gearhaeart, J.F. Hall, B. McFarland, M.K. Nelson, P. Nix,of aquatic plants using laboratory testing with Hyalella azteca.C.J. Richardson, and D.P. Tierney. 1999. Workgroup V synopsis:Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 45:331–336.Constructed wetlands as a risk mitigation alternative. p. 315–342.

Schulz, R., and S.K.C. Peall. 2001. Effectiveness of a constructedIn M.A. Lewis, F.L. Mayer, R.L. Powell, M.K. Nelson, S.I. Klaine,wetland for retention of nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in theM.G. Henry, and G.W. Dickson (ed.) Ecotoxicology and risk assess-Lourens River Catchment, South Africa. Environ. Sci. Technol.ment for wetlands. Soc. of Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. (SETAC),35:422–426.Pensacola, FL.

Schulz, R., S.K.C. Peall, J.M. Dabrowski, and A.J. Reinecke. 2001a.Ross, P., G.I. Scott, M.H. Fulton, and E.D. Strozier. 1996. Immuno-Current-use insecticides, phosphates and suspended solids in theassays for rapid, inexpensive monitoring of agricultural chemicals.Lourens River, Western Cape, during the first rainfall event of thep. 161–178. In M. Richardson (ed.) Environmental xenobiotics.wet season. Water SA 27:65–70.Taylor and Francis, London.

Schulz, R., S.K.C. Peall, J.M. Dabrowski, and A.J. Reinecke. 2001b.Rovedatti, M.G., P.M. Castane, M.L. Topalian, and A. Salibian. 2001.Spray deposition of two insecticides into surface waters in a SouthMonitoring of organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides inAfrican orchard area. J. Environ. Qual. 30:814–822.the water of the Reconquista River (Buenos Aires, Argentina).

Schulz, R., S.K.C. Peall, C. Hugo, and V. Krause. 2001c. Concentra-Water Res. 35:3457–3461.tion, load and toxicity of spray drift-borne azinphos-methyl at theSallenave, R.M., and K.E. Day. 1991. Secondary production of benthicinlet and outlet of a constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 18:239–245.stream invertebrates in agricultural watersheds with different land

Schulz, R., G. Thiere, and J.M. Dabrowski. 2002. A combined micro-management practices. Chemosphere 23:57–76.cosm and field approach to evaluate the aquatic toxicity of azinphos-Salyi, G., and G. Csaba. 1994. Pyrethroid poisoning of fish. Casemethyl to stream communities. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21:2172–report and review article. Magy. Allatorv. Lapja 49:664–670.2178.Samman, J., J.S. Amakye, and M.W. Asobayire. 1994. Short-term

Scott, G.I., D.S. Baughman, A.H. Trim, and J.C. Dee. 1987. Lethaleffects of carbosulfan on drifting invertebrates in the Black Volta,and sublethal effects of insecticides commonly found in nonpointGhana. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52:286–291.source agricultural runoff to estuarine fish and shellfish. p. 251–273.Schiavon, M., C. Perrin-Ganier, and J.M. Portal. 1995. The pollutionIn W.B. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F.P. Thurberg, and J.F. Vernbergof water by pesticides: State and origin. Agronomie (Paris) 15:(ed.) Pollution physiology of estuarine organisms. Univ. of South157–170.Carolina Press, Columbia.Schindler, D.W. 1998. Replication versus realism: The need for ecosys-

Scott, G.I., M.H. Fulton, D.W. Moore, E.F. Wirth, G.T. Chandler,tem-scale experiments. Ecosystems 1:323–334.P.B. Key, J.W. Daugomah, E.D. Strozier, J. Devane, J.R. Clark,Schlenk, D., D.B. Huggett, J. Allgood, E. Bennett, J. Rimoldi, A.B.M.A. Lewis, D.B. Finley, W. Ellenberg, and K.J. Karnaky, Jr. 1999.Beeler, D. Block, A.W. Holder, R. Hovinga, and P. Bedient. 2001.

Toxicity of fipronil and its degradation products to Procambarus Assessment of risk reduction strategies for the management of

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


agricultural nonpoint source pesticide runoff in estuarine ecosys- servation Practice Standards-NHCP [Online.] Available at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nhcp_2.html (verified 29 Oct. 2003). USDA-tem. Toxicol. Ind. Health 15:200–213.

Scott, G.I., D.W. Moore, M.H. Fulton, T.W. Hampton, J.M. Marcus, NRCS, Washington, DC.USEPA. 1995. AQUIRE—Aquatic toxicity information retrieval da-G.T. Chandler, K.L. Jackson, D.S. Baughman, A.H. Trim, L. Wil-

liams, C.J. Louden, and E.R. Patterson. 1989. Agricultural insecti- tabase. USEPA, Natl. Health and Environ. Effects Res. Lab., Du-luth, MN.cide runoff effects on estuarine organisms: Correlating laboratory

and field toxicity testing with ecotoxicological biomonitoring. CR- USEPA. 1999a. Background document for the Scientific AdvisoryPanel on orchard airblast: Downwind deposition tolerance bounds813138-02-1. Gulf Breeze Environ. Res. Lab., Gulf Breeze, FL.

Shires, S.W., and D. Bennett. 1985. Contamination and effects in for orchards. USEPA, Washington, DC.USEPA. 1999b. National recommended water quality criteria-correc-freshwater ditches resulting from an aerial application of cyper-

methrin. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 9:145–158. tion. EPA-822-Z-99-001, PB99-149189. USEPA, Office of Water,Washington, DC.Shutes, R.B.E., D.M. Revitt, A.S. Mungur, and L.N.L. Scholes. 1997.

The design of wetland systems for the treatment of urban run off. Van Dijk, H.F.G., L. Brussard, A. Stein, F. Baerselman, H. de Heer,T.C.M. Brock, E. Van Donk, L.E.M. Vet, M.A. Van der Gaag,Water Sci. Technol. 35(5):19–25.

Sibley, P.K., K.N. Kaushik, and D.P. Kreutzweiser. 1991. Impact of C.A.M. Van Gestel, N. Van der Hoeven, F.M.W. De Jong, A.M.A.Van der Linden, P.C.M. Van Noort, P.A. Oomen, and P.J.M. Vana pulse application of permethrin on the macroinvertebrate com-

munity of a headwater stream. Environ. Pollut. 70:35–55. Vliet. 2000. Field research for the authorisation of pesticides. Eco-toxicology 9:377–381.Smith, S., C.M. Cooper, S.S. Knight, G.H. Willis, and L.M. Southwick.

1995. Pesticide transport research at the NSL: Past, present, future. Vymazal, J. 1990. Use of reed-bed systems for the treatment of concen-trated wastes form agriculture. p. 347–358. In P.F. Cooper and B.C.Proc. Annu. Miss. Water Resour. Conf. 25:24–29.

Spalding, R.F., and D.D. Snow. 1989. Stream levels of agrochemicals Findlater (ed.) Constructed wetlands in water pollution control.Pergamon Press, Oxford.during a spring discharge event. Chemosphere 19:1129–1140.

Spatz, R., F. Walker, and K. Hurle. 1997. Effect of grass buffer strips Wallace, J.B., T.F. Cuffney, J.R. Webster, G.J. Lugthart, K. Chung,and B.S. Goldowitz. 1991a. Export of fine organic particles fromon pesticide runoff under simulated rainfall. Meded. Fac. Land-

bouwkd. Toegepaste Biol. Wet. Univ. Gent 62:799–806. headwater streams—Effects of season, extreme discharges, andinvertebrate manipulation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36:670–682.Spongberg, A.L., and J.M. Martin-Hayden. 1997. Pesticide stratifica-

tion in an engineered wetlands delta. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: Wallace, J.B., A.D. Huryn, and G.J. Lugthart. 1991b. Colonizationof a headwater stream during three years of seasonal insecticidal3161–3165.

Sturm, A., J. Wogram, P.D. Hansen, and M. Liess. 1999. Potential applications. Hydrobiologia 211:65–76.Wallace, J.B., M.R. Whiles, S. Eggert, T.F. Cuffney, G.J. Lugthart,use of cholinesterase in monitoring low levels of organophosphates

in small streams: Natural variability in three-spined stickleback and K. Chung. 1995. Long term dynamics of coarse particulateorganic matter in three Appalachian Mountain streams. J. North(Gasterosteus aculeatus) and relation to pollution. Environ. Toxicol.

Chem. 18(2):194–200. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14:217–232.Wallace, R.R., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1975. The catastrophic drift ofSuhling, F., S. Befeld, M. Hausler, K. Katzur, S. Lepkojus, and F.

Mesleard. 2000. Effects of insecticide applications on macroinverte- stream insects after treatment with methoxychlor (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-methoxyphenyl)ethane). Environ. Pollut. (1970–1979)brate density and biomass in rice-fields in the Rhone-delta, France.

Hydrobiologia 431:69–79. 8:255–268.Wallace, R.R., H.B.N. Hynes, and W.F. Merritt. 1976. Laboratory andTada, M., and S. Hatakeyama. 2000. Chronic effects of an insecticide,

fenobucarb, on the larvae of two mayflies, Epeorus latifolium and field experiments with methoxychlor as a larvicide for simuliidae(Diptera). Environ. Pollut. (1970–1979) 10:251–269.Baetis thermicus, in model streams. Ecotoxicology 9:187–195.

Tada, M., and H. Shiraishi. 1994. Changes in abundance of benthic Wan, M.T. 1989. Levels of selected pesticides in farm ditches leadingto rivers in the lower mainland of British Columbia (Canada). J.macroinvertebrates in a pesticide-contaminated river. Jpn. J. Lim-

nol. 55:159–164. Environ. Sci. Health Part B B24:183–203.Wan, M.T., S. Szeto, and P. Price. 1994. Organophosphorus insecticideTakamura, K. 1996. Life cycle of the damselfly Calopteryx atrata in

relation to pesticide contamination. Ecotoxicology 5:1–8. residues in farm ditches of the Lower Fraser Valley of BritishColumbia. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B B29:917–949.Takamura, K., S. Hatakeyama, and H. Shiraishi. 1991a. Odonate lar-

vae as an indicator of pesticide contamination. Appl. Entomol. Wan, M.T., S. Szeto, and P. Price. 1995a. Distribution of endosulfanresidues in the drainage waterways of the Lower Fraser Valley ofZool. 26:321–326.

Takamura, K., S. Nohara, T. Kariyra, M. Okazaki, and K. Ito. 1991b. British Columbia. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B B30:401–433.Wan, M.T., S.Y. Szeto, and P. Price. 1995b. Distribution and persis-Effects of pesticide contamination from rice fields on stream ben-

thic arthropods. Jpn. J. Limnol. 52:95–103. tence of azinphos-methyl and parathion in chemigated cranberrybogs. J. Environ. Qual. 24:589–596.Tanabe, A., H. Mitobe, K. Kawata, A. Yasuhara, and T. Shibamoto.

2001. Seasonal and spatial studies on pesticide residues in surface Wauchope, R.D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water drainingfrom agricultural fields—A review. J. Environ. Qual. 7:459–472.waters of the Shinano River in Japan. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:

3847–3852. Way, M.J., and H.F. van Emden. 2000. Integrated pest managementin practice—Pathways towards successful application. Crop Prot.Teunissen-Ordelmann, H.G.K., and S.M. Schrap. 1997. Pesticides.

Policy Doc. 97.038. RIZA, Amsterdam. 19:81–103.Weinberger, P., R. Greenhalgh, R.P. Moody, and B. Boulton. 1982.Thompson, H.M. 1996. Interactions between pesticides; a review of

reported effects and their implications for wildlife risk assessment. Fate of fenitrothion in aquatic microcosms and the role of aquaticplants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:470–473.Ecotoxicology 5:59–81.

Touart, L.W., and A.F. Maciorowski. 1997. Information needs for Werner, I., L.A. Deanovic, V. Connor, V. DeVlaming, H.C. Bailey,and D.E. Hinton. 2000. Insecticide-caused toxicity to Ceriodaphiniapesticide registration in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 7:1086–1093.

Trim, A.H., and J.M. Marcus. 1990. Integration of long-term fish kill dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta,California, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19:215–227.data with ambient water quality monitoring data and application

to water quality management. Environ. Manage. (NY) 14:389–396. Wetzel, R.G. 1993. Constructed wetlands: Scientific foundations arecritical. p. 3–7. In G.A. Moshiri (ed.) Constructed wetlands forTucker, K.A., and G.A. Burton. 1999. Assessment of nonpoint-source

runoff in a stream using in situ and laboratory approaches. Environ. water quality improvement. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Williams, R.D., and A.D. Nicks. 1993. Impact of vegetative filter stripsToxicol. Chem. 18:2797–2803.

Turnbull, A., R. Harrison, A. DiGuardo, D. Mackay, and D. Calamari. on soil loss and water quality. p. 279–287. In Proc. of the Int.Erosion Control Assoc. Conf., Indianapolis, IN. IECA, Steamboat1995. An assessment of the behavior of selected pesticides at ADAS

Rosemaund. BCPC Monogr. 62:87–92. Springs, CO.Williams, R.J., D. Brooke, P. Matthiessen, M. Mills, A. Turnbull, andUcar, T., and F.R. Hall. 2001. Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitiga-

tion strategy: A review. Pestic. Manage. Sci. 57:663–675. R.M. Harrison. 1995. Pesticide transport to surface waters withinan agricultural catchment. J. Inst. Water Environ. Manage. 9:72–81.USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. National Con-

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.


Willis, G.H., and L.L. McDowell. 1982. Pesticides in agricultural runoff Zablotowicz, R.M., and R.E. Hoagland. 1999. Microbiological consid-and their effects on downstream water quality. Environ. Toxicol. erations in phytoremediation strategies for pesticide-contaminatedChem. 1:267–279. soils and waters. p. 343–360. In R.C. Rajak (ed.) Microbial biotech-

Wolverton, B.C., and D.D. Harrison. 1975. Aquatic plants for removal nology for sustainable development and productivity. Scientificof mevinphos from the aquatic environment. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. Publisher, Jodhpur, India.19:84–88. Zullei-Seibert, N. 1990. Vorkommen und Nachweisbarkeit von Pflan-Wolverton, B.C., and M.M. McKown. 1976. Water hyacinths for re-

zenbehandlungs-und Schadlingsbekampfungsmittel-Wirkstoffen inmoval of phenols from polluted waters. Aquat. Bot. 2:191–201.Roh-und Trinkwassern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verof-Yasuno, M., F. Shioyama, and J. Hasegawa. 1981. Field experimentfentlichungen des Instituts fur Wasserforschung GmbH Dortmundon susceptibility of macro benthos in streams to temephos. Eisei

Dobutsu 32:229–234. und der Dortmunder Stadtwerke AG, Dortmund, Germany.

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Jou

rnal

of E

nviro

nmen

tal Q

ualit

y. P

ublis

hed

by A

SA

, CS

SA

, and

SS

SA

. All

copy

right

s re

serv

ed.

REVIEWS AND ANALYSES

Documents