Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:48:24.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean expansion and the challenge of the coexistence of agribusiness with local production and conservation initiatives: pesticides in a Ramsar site in Uruguay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2020

Alvaro Soutullo Open the ORCID record for Alvaro Soutullo [Opens in a new window] ,
Mariana Ríos ,
Natalia Zaldúa  and
Franco Teixeira-de-Mello Open the ORCID record for Franco Teixeira-de-Mello [Opens in a new window]
Alvaro Soutullo*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ecología y Gestión Ambiental, Centro Universitario Regional del Este, Universidad de la República, Tacuarembó y Bulevar Artigas, Maldonado, Uruguay
Mariana Ríos
Affiliation:
Vida Silvestre Uruguay, Canelones 1198, Montevideo, Uruguay
Natalia Zaldúa
Affiliation:
Vida Silvestre Uruguay, Canelones 1198, Montevideo, Uruguay
Franco Teixeira-de-Mello
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ecología y Gestión Ambiental, Centro Universitario Regional del Este, Universidad de la República, Tacuarembó y Bulevar Artigas, Maldonado, Uruguay
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Alvaro Soutullo, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Soybean has undergone the greatest expansion of any global crop, fuelled by the emergence of herbicide-resistant crops. In Uruguay, soybean croplands have increased from virtually zero to more than 1 million ha in 20 years. Uruguay is also implementing its system of protected areas. Here, we assess the presence of pesticides within a Ramsar site and protected area, in a basin dominated by croplands. We consider pesticides as surrogates of the subtle impacts of agribusiness on conservation initiatives and other productions. Pesticides were found in soils, fishes and beehives, both within and around the protected area. Endosulfan was found in all matrices analysed (23 of 80 samples), while glyphosate (0–2.31 mg/kg) and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA; 0–0.61 mg/kg) were found in all soil classes. The study also allowed for a retrospective evaluation of a recent policy banning endosulfan in Uruguay, suggesting that while the protected area has not been immune to the impacts of agribusiness on human health or biodiversity, limiting the use of pesticides reduces or avoids some of them. This has implications for the design of multifunctional landscapes and for the debate on land sharing versus land sparing.

Keywords

endosulfanglyphosateland planningpesticidesprotected areasRamsarsoybean
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 97 - 103
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aktar, W, Sengupta, D, Chowdhury, A (2009) Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 2: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvarez, A, Blum, A, Gallego, F (2015) Atlas de Cobertura del Suelo del Uruguay. Rome, Italy: FAO, DINOT/MVOTMA.Google Scholar
Antúnez, K, Anido, M, Branchiccela, MB, Harriet, J, Campá, J, Invernizzi, Cet al. (2013) Despoblación de colmenas. Proyecto FPTA-258 Despoblación de colmenas: determinación de sus causas en Uruguay. Serie FPTA N° 41. Montevideo, Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA).Google Scholar
Antúnez, K, Invernizzi, C, Mendoza, Y, Vanengelsdorp, D, Zunino, P (2017) Honeybee colony losses in Uruguay during 2013–2014. Apidologie 48: 364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 24: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonny, S (2008) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28: 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, BJ, Ward, MH, Turyk, ME, Stayner, LT (2015) Agricultural crop density and risk of childhood cancer in the midwestern United States: an ecologic study. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 14: 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldas, MM, Goodin, D, Sherwood, S, Campos Krauer, JM, Wisely, SM (2015) Land-cover change in the Paraguayan Chaco: 2000–2011. Journal of Land Use Science 10: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHDA (2018) Comisión Honoraria de Desarrollo Apícola [www document]. URL www.mgap.gub.uy/unidad-organizativa/comision-honoraria-de-desarrollo-apicolaGoogle Scholar
Cumming, GS, Spiesman, BJ (2006) Regional problems need integrated solutions: pest management and conservation biology in agroecosystems. Biological Conservation 131: 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Minin, E, Soutullo, A, Bartesaghi, L, Rios, M, Szephegyi, MN, Moilanen, A (2017) Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem services and socio-economic data to identify priority areas and landowners for conservation actions at the national scale. Biological Conservation 206: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, N, Attwood, SJ, Goulson, D, Jarvis, D, Bharucha, ZP, Pretty, J (2017) How should conservationists respond to pesticides as a driver of biodiversity loss in agroecosystems? Biological Conservation 209: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, F, Alonso, B, Colazzo, M, Pareja, L, Cesio, V, Pereira, Aet al. (2018) Occurrence of pesticide residues in fish from South American rainfed agroecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 631–632: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezquerro-Cañete, A (2016) Poisoned, dispossessed and excluded: a critique of the neoliberal soy regime in Paraguay. Journal of Agrarian Change 16: 702–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2019) FAOSTAT [www document]. URL www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualizeGoogle Scholar
Fehlenberg, V, Baumann, M, Gasparri, NI, Piquer-Rodriguez, M, Gavier-Pizarro, G, Kuemmerle, T (2017) The role of soybean production as an underlying driver of deforestation in the South American Chaco. Global Environmental Change 45: 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J, Abson, DJ, Butsic, V, Chappell, MJ, Ekroos, J, Hanspach, Jet al. (2014) Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conservation Letters 7: 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, JA, DeFries, R, Asner, GP, Barford, C, Bonan, G, Carpenter, SRet al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foley, JA, Ramankutty, N, Brauman, KA, Cassidy, ES, Gerber, JS, Johnston, Met al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, RD, Rueda, X, Lambin, EF (2013) Globalization’s unexpected impact on soybean production in South America: linkages between preferences for non-genetically modified crops, eco-certifications, and land use. Environmental Research Letters 8: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasparri, NI, Kuemmerle, T, Meyfroidt, P, le Polain de Waroux, Y, Kreft, H (2016) The emerging soybean production frontier in Southern Africa: conservation challenges and the role of south–south telecouplings. Conservation Letters 9: 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfray, C, Beddington, JR, Crute, IR, Haddad, L, Lawrence, D, Muir, JFet al. (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grau, HR, Gasparri, NI, Aide, TM (2005) Agriculture expansion and deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west Argentina. Environmental Conservation 32: 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grecchi, RC, Gwyn, QHJ, Bénié, GB, Formaggio, AR, Fahl, FC (2014) Land use and land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado: a multidisciplinary approach to assess the impacts of agricultural expansion. Applied Geography 55: 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, JCJ, Rossing, WAH, Jellema, A, Stobbelaar, DJ, Renting, H, Van Ittersum, MK (2007) Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality – a methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120: 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, K (2011) Preliminary study of pesticide drift into the Maya mountain protected areas of Belize. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 86: 56–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J, Alexander, F, Brodie, J (2013) Regulation of pesticides in Australia: the Great Barrier Reef as a case study for evaluating effectiveness. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 180: 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landrigan, PJ, Benbrook, C (2015) GMOs, herbicides, and public health. New England Journal of Medicine 373: 693–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovell, ST, Johnston, DM (2009) Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, MA, Froberg, JE, Doose, GM, Masumoto, HT (1981) Improved multiresidue gas chromatographic determination of organophosphorus, organonitrogen, and organohalogen pesticides in produce, using flame photometric and electrolytic conductivity detectors. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 64: 1187–1195.Google ScholarPubMed
Masuda, T, Goldsmith, PD (2009) World soybean production: area harvested, yield, and long-term projections. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12: 143–162.Google Scholar
Mertz, O, Mertens, C (2017) Land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries – drivers and linkages to scientific debates. World Development 98: 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, JP, Antoniou, MN, Blumberg, B, Carroll, L, Colborn, T, Everett, LGet al. (2016) Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environmental Health 15: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, GC, Bennett, E, Berhe, AA, Cassman, K, DeFries, R, Dietz, Tet al. (2006) Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview. Ecology and Society 11: 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyhantçabal, G, Narbondo, I (2011) Radiografía del agronegocio sojero: descripción de los principales actores y los impactos socio-económicos en Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: REDES - Amigos de la Tierra.Google Scholar
Pacheco, P (2012) Soybean and oil palm expansion in South America. A review of main trends and implications. Center for International Forestry Research 90: 1–28.Google Scholar
Palomo, I, Montes, C, Martín-López, B, González, JA, García-Llorente, M, Alcorlo, P, Mora, MRG (2014) Incorporating the social–ecological approach in protected areas in the Anthropocene. Bioscience 64: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patra, RW, Chapman, JC, Lim, RP, Gehrke, PC (2007) The effects of three organic chemicals on the upper thermal tolerances of four freshwater fishes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26: 1454–1459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Parada, A, Goyenola, G, Teixeira de Mello, F, Heinzen, H (2018) Recent advances and open questions around pesticide dynamics and effects on freshwater fishes. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health 4: 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phélinas, P, Choumert, J (2017) Is GM soybean cultivation in Argentina sustainable? World Development 99: 452–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinete, N, Castro, J, Fernandez, A, Zamora-Ley, IM, Rand, GM, Gardinali, PR (2013) Occurrence and distribution of endosulfan in water, sediment, and fish tissue: an ecological assessment of protected lands in south Florida. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 61: 11881–11892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redford, KH, Huntley, BJ, Roe, D, Hammond, T, Zimsky, M, Lovejoy, TEet al. (2015) Mainstreaming biodiversity: conservation for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redo, DJ, Aide, TM, Clark, ML, Andrade-Núñez, MJ (2012) Impacts of internal and external policies on land change in Uruguay, 2001–2009. Environmental Conservation 39: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renting, H, Rossing, WAH, Groot, JCJ, Van der Ploeg, JD, Laurent, C, Perraud, Det al. (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. Journal of Environmental Management 90: S112–S123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, P, Pellegrina, H, VanWey, L, Spera, S (2015) Soybean development: the impact of a decade of agricultural change on urban and economic growth in Mato Grosso, Brazil. PLoS One 10: e0122510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ríos, M, Zaldúa, N, Cupeiro, S (2010) Evaluación participativa de plaguicidas en el sitio RAMSAR, Parque Nacional Esteros de Farrapos e Islas del Río Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: Vida Silvestre Uruguay.Google Scholar
Saunders, M, Magnanti, BL, Carreira, SC, Yang, A, Alamo-Hernández, U, Riojas-Rodriguez, Het al. (2012) Chlorpyrifos and neurodevelopmental effects: a literature review and expert elicitation on research and policy. Environmental Health 11: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selman, P (2009) Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 5: 45–52.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Gregory, PJ, van Vuuren, D, Obersteiner, M, Havlik, P, Rounsevell, Met al. (2010) Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 365: 2941–2957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tittonell, P (2014) Ecological intensification of agriculture – sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urcola, HA, de Sartre, XA, Veiga, I, Elverdin, J, Albaladejo, C (2015) Land tenancy, soybean, actors and transformations in the pampas: a district balance. Journal of Rural Studies 39: 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vardia, HK, Durve, VS (1981) The toxicity of 2,4-D to Cyprinus carpio var. Communis in relation to the seasonal variation in the temperature. Hydrobiologia 77: 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WWF (2014) The Growth of Soy: Impacts and Solutions. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.Google Scholar
Zabel, F, Delzeit, R, Schneider, JM, Seppelt, R, Mauser, W, Václavík, T (2019) Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nature Communications 10: 2844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed