Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:26:46.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative ecological risk assessment for herbicides used on spring wheat: the effect of glyphosate when used within a glyphosate-tolerant wheat system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert K. D. Peterson  and
Andrew G. Hulting
Andrew G. Hulting
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-tolerant spring wheat currently is being developed and most likely will be the first major genetically engineered crop to be marketed and grown in several areas of the northern Great Plains of the United States. The public has expressed concerns about environmental risks from glyphosate-tolerant wheat. Replacement of traditional herbicide active ingredients with glyphosate in a glyphosate-tolerant spring wheat system may alter ecological risks associated with weed management. The objective of this study was to use a Tier 1 quantitative risk assessment methodology to compare ecological risks for 16 herbicide active ingredients used in spring wheat. The herbicide active ingredients included 2,4-D, bromoxynil, clodinafop, clopyralid, dicamba, fenoxaprop, flucarbazone, glyphosate, MCPA, metsulfuron, thifensulfuron, tralkoxydim, triallate, triasulfuron, tribenuron, and trifluralin. We compared the relative risks of these herbicides to glyphosate to provide an indication of the effect of glyphosate when it is used in a glyphosate-tolerant spring wheat system. Ecological receptors and effects evaluated were avian (acute dietary risk), wild mammal (acute dietary risk), aquatic vertebrates (acute risk), aquatic invertebrates (acute risk), aquatic plants (acute risk), nontarget terrestrial plants (seedling emergence and vegetative vigor), and groundwater exposure. Ecological risks were assessed by integrating toxicity and exposure, primarily using the risk quotient method. Ecological risks for the 15 herbicides relative to glyphosate were highly variable. For risks to duckweed, green algae, groundwater, and nontarget plant seedling emergence, glyphosate had less relative risk than most other active ingredients. The differences in relative risks were most pronounced when glyphosate was compared with herbicides currently widely used on spring wheat.

Keywords

Bromoxynilclodinafopclopyraliddicamba2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acidfenoxapropflucarbazoneglyphosateMCPAmetsulfuronspring wheatthifensulfurontralkoxydimtriallatetriasulfurontribenurontrifluralinspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Biotechnologyexposure assessmentgenetically engineered cropsherbicide exposureherbicide toxicity
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 834 - 844
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Bayer CropScience. 2001. Everest 70WDG Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised January 25, 2001. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience.Google Scholar
Bayer CropScience. 2002. Puma 1EC Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised December 18, 2002. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience.Google Scholar
Bitzer, B. J., Buckelew, L. D., and Pedigo, L. P. 2002. Effects of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybean varieties and systems on surface-active springtails (Entognatha: Collembola). Environ. Entomol 31:449–461.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 2002. Selective weed control with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 16:885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Food Safety. 2003. Petition Seeking an Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Deregulation of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties & Petition Seeking the Listing of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties as Noxious Weeds. Citizen Petition before the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Health Inspection Service. www.centerforfoodsafety.org/li/WheatUSDApetFinalD7.pdf.Google Scholar
Dupont. 2002a. Harmony Extra XP Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised September 30, 2002. Wilmington, DE: Dupont.Google Scholar
Dupont. 2002b. Express XP Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised August 9, 2002. Wilmington, DE: Dupont.Google Scholar
Dupont. 2003. Ally XP Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised April 16, 2003. Wilmington, DE: Dupont.Google Scholar
European Council. 1980. Directive 80/778/EEC Relating to the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 110:A68–A70.Google Scholar
Evans, D. D. and Batty, M. J. 1986. Effects of high dietary concentrations of glyphosate (Roundup) on a species of bird, marsupial and rodent indigenous to Australia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5:399–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EXTOXNET] The Extension Toxicology Network. 1996. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. S., Nellessen, J. E., and Pfleeger, T. G. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA Food-Chain (Kenaga) Nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 13:1383–1391.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. ACS Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 163–175.Google Scholar
Giesy, J. P., Dobson, S., and Solomon, K. R. 2000. Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 167:35–120.Google Scholar
Glogoza, P., McCullen, M., Zollinger, R., Thostenson, A., DeJong, T., Meyer, W., Schauer, N., and Olson, J. 2002. Pesticide use and pest management practices for major crops in North Dakota-2000. North Dakota State University Extension Service Bull. ER-79.Google Scholar
Higley, L. G. and Wintersteen, W. K. 1992. A novel approach to environmental risk assessment of pesticides as a basis for incorporating environmental costs into economic injury levels. Am. Entomol 38:34–39.Google Scholar
Hoerger, F. and Kenaga, E. E. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. Pages 9–28 in Coulston, F. and Korte, F. eds. Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology. Stuttgart, West Germany: Georg Thieme Publishers.Google Scholar
Information Ventures. 1995. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Clopyralid methyl. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/.Google Scholar
Kovach, J., Petzold, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides. New York's Food and Life Science Bull. No. 139. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mayer, F. L. and Ellersieck, M. R. 1986. Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. U.S. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 160.Google Scholar
McPherson, R. M., Johnson, W. C., Mullinix, B. C. Jr., Mills, W. A. III, and Peebles, F. S. 2003. Influence of herbicide tolerant soybean production systems on insect pest populations and pest-induced crop damage. J. Econ. Entomol 96:690–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. C. and Bullock, D. S. 2003. Simulating a relative environmental effect of glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Ecol. Econ 45:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northern Plains Resource Council. 2002. Why Plant What You Can't Sell: Protecting Montana's Valuable Wheat from Genetic Contamination. 4 pp. www.northernplains.org.Google Scholar
[NRC] National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
[PAN] Pesticide Action Network Pesticides Database. 2003. Toxicity Studies for Thifensulfuron-methyl. www.pesticideinfo.org/Index.html.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. K. D. 2002. The Risk Assessment Paradigm. Agbiosafety. http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/paradigm.htm.Google Scholar
[SETAC] Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1994. Aquatic Dialogue Group: Pesticide Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Pensacola, FL: Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education. P. 220.Google Scholar
Syngenta. 1998. Amber Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised November 13, 1998. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta.Google Scholar
Syngenta. 2002a. Discover Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised December 18, 2002. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta.Google Scholar
Syngenta. 2002b. Achieve 40DG Herbicide. Material Safety Data Sheet, Revised April 24, 2002. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003a. Small Grains 2003 Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cr Pr 2-3 (03).Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003b. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2002 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Ag Ch 1 (03).Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a. Hazard Evaluation Division. Standard Evaluation Procedure: Avian Dietary LC50 Test. PB86-129293. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985b. Hazard Evaluation Division. Standard Evaluation Procedure: Acute Toxicity for Freshwater Invertebrates. PB86-129269. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985c. Hazard Evaluation Division. Standard Evaluation Procedure: Acute Toxicity for Freshwater Fish. PB86-129277. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate. EPA 738-R-93-014. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.2200 Avian Dietary Toxicity Test. EPA 712-C-96-140, April 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.4100 Terrestrial Plant Toxicity. EPA 712-C-96-153, April 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.5400 Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II. EPA 712-C-96-164, April 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996d. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.4400 Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test Using Lemna spp., Tiers I and II. EPA 712-C-96-156, April 1996. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996e. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.1010 Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids. EPA 712-C-96-114, April 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996f. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 850.1075 Fish Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater and Marine. EPA 712-C-96-118, April 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996g. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Trifluralin. EPA 738-R-95-040. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Guidelines for Expedited Review of Conventional Pesticides under the Reduced-Risk Initiative and for Biological Pesticides. Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notice 97-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Bromoxynil. EPA 738-R-98-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods. EPA/OPP/EFED. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Flucarbazone-sodium; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances. Federal Register: September 29, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 190, Pp. 58364–58375). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Triallate. EPA 738-R-00-021. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. GENEEC, v. 2.1. www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. SCI-GROW, v. 2.2. www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ecotoxicological One-Liner Database. www.epa.gov/oppefed1/general/databasesdescription.htm#ecotoxicity.Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D. and Peterson, R. K. D. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: the role of risk analysis. AgBioForum 3:291–298.Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D., Peterson, R. K. D., Bystrak, P., and Meade, T. 2003. A screening level approach for non-target insect risk assessment: transgenic Bt corn pollen and the monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). Environ. Entomol 32:237–246.Google Scholar