Models for Pesticide SelectionJennifer Grant

NYS IPM Program

Cornell University

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

Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s

• Efficacy

• Economics

• Environmental & health impact

Data Sources• MSDS Sheet

• Label

• Cornell Pesticide Management and Education Program, PIMS site

• EPA pesticide fact sheets

• EXTOXNET pesticide summaries

• Pesticide Action Network (PAN) database

• Turf Pesticides and Cancer Risk Database

Water impact models for Agriculture

• Chemical and physical properties of pesticides that affect environmental fate (e.g. solubility, soil adsorption)

• Agricultural crops (row crops with some bare soil)

• Physical properties of soils

Based on:

Water impact models for Agriculture

• WinPST (USDA National Resource Conservation Service’s Windows Pesticide Screening Tool)

• GLEAMS (Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management)

• NAPRA (National Pesticide Risk Analysis)• GUS (Groundwater Ubiquity Source)• SPISP (Soil Pesticide Interaction Screening

Procedure)

Water impact models for Turfgrass

• TurfPQ (model for runoff from turfgrass, Haith, 2001)– estimates pesticide in runoff events from turf– Accounts for thatch– Uses Carbon content, OM and bulk density

specific to turf– Useful for water quality studies and

environmental assessments

Model Complexity

• Ecological impacts (e.g. toxicity to fish, other non-targets)

• Human health impacts

• Site specificity (e.g. soil type, slope)

• Management influences

NRCS Three-Tiered Pesticide Environmental Risk Screening

• Tier 1 - SPISP• Tier 2 = NAPRA

– Utilizes GLEAMS– environmental benefits of management alternatives– Regional climatic conditions– Results consider both the off-site movement of pesticide and its

toxicity to non-target species

• Tier 3 - NAPRA– Site specific – Generic inputs are replaced by individual producers' filing

records and field measured soils data

Integrated models for selection

Decision Tool for Integrated Pesticide Selection and Management (IATP)– Minnesota corn & soybeans

– Water contamination focus (WinPST)

– Human exposure (drinking water)

– Fish as non-target organism

Integrated models for selection

Environmental EIL – Assigns an “environmental cost” to pest

management, based on opinion surveys (contingent valuation)

– Largely theoretical, but assigns values

(Higley & Wintersteen, 1992)

Risk/Category and Environmental Cost, Environmental EIL

Insecticide Sur H2O Grd H2O Aquatic Avian

Orthene 75S (acephate) LR LR LR MR

DiPel ES (Bt K) NR LR LR NR

D-z-n diazinon 4E MR MR HR HR

Insecticide Mammal Benef. Insects Acute Chronic Total

"Cost"

Orthene 75S LR LR LR LR $6.14

DiPel ES NR NR NR LR $2.25

D-z-n diazinon 4E LR HR LR LR $8.95

Integrated models for selectionEnvironmental Yardstick (Netherlands)

– Values risk as environmental impact points– Based on

• Acute risk to water organisms

• Risk of groundwater contamination

• Acute and chronic risks to soil organisms

– Provides numerical value for a pesticide applied at a specific rate

– Expressed as environmental impact points (EIP)

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

Integrated models for selectionEnvironmental Yardstick (cont’d)

Currently used in the Netherlands– Farm & Greenhouse decision support tool

– Environmental performance incentive

– Standards for eco-labels

– Policy tool

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

Integrated models for selection

Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)– Original model published in 1992 (Kovach

et al.) for food crops

– Three components: worker, consumer, ecological

– Provides numerical value for a pesticide, applied at a specific rate

– Can use to select pesticides or compare systems

EIQ=

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

+

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

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

5)]}

÷ 3

EIQ

• Farm worker: Acute and chronic toxicity to humans.

• Consumer: Food residues, chronic toxicity to humans, leachability to groundwater.

• Ecological: Aquatic and terrestrial non-target toxicity (fish, bees), leachability, persistence.

EIQ

• Risk = toxicity x potential for exposure

• E.g. effect on fish depends on toxicity to fish, and likelihood of fish encountering pesticide. – Persistence

– Surface loss potential

Applicator + Picker

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

Chronic Toxicity

Dermal Toxicity

Plant surface residue half-life

Farm worker Component

Chronic Toxicity

• Average of Reproductive, Teratogenic, Mutagenic, & Oncogenic effects

• Low value if no evidence of carcinogenicity

• High value if probable human carcinogen

Dermal Toxicity

• Dermal LD50 rabbits• Dermal LD50 rats

1 = > 2000 mg/kg

3 = 200 - 2000 mg/kg

5 = 0 - 200 mg/kg

Plant Surface Residue

1 = < 2 weeks

3 = 2-4 weeks

5 = > 4 weeks

Herbicides

Pre-emergent = 1

Post-emergent = 3

Food residue + Groundwater

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

Soil half-life

Mode of Action: Systemic or non

Consumer Component

Chronic Toxicity

Plant half-life

Leaching potential

• Plant half life• Soil half life

Exposure

Persistence

Fish + Bird + Bee + Beneficials

Ecological Component

Each organism X potential for exposure

Ecological component

• Fish toxicity (F)• Surface Loss

Potential (R)• Bird Toxicity (D)• Soil half life (S)

• Plant surface half life (P)

• Bee Toxicity (Z)

• Beneficial Arthropod toxicity (B)

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

Beneficial arthropod impact

• SELCTV database on 600 chemicals, 400 natural enemies (Oregon State Univ., Theiling and Croft, 1988)

• Data generated more recently --standardized on 5 natural enemies (insects) and 3 microbials – (Cornell, Petzoldt & Kovach, 2002)

EIQ=

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

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

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

P x 5)]}÷ 3

The poison is in the dose!

The poison is in the dose!

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

EIQ as a Pesticide Selection Tool

Insecticide Example

Worker Consumer Ecological EIQ Field EIQ

Cyfluthrin 7 2 108 40 3

Chlorpyrifos 18 3 109 44 22

Ethoprop 69 7 105 62 311

Fungicide example

Worker Consumer Ecological EIQ Field EIQ

Bacillus 6 2 12 7 0.13 - 0.51

licheniformis .25 DS

Iprodione 12 2 21 11 14-61

21-26 DS

Chlorothalonil 20 8 91 40 44 - 661184 - 392 DS

Additional Considerations

• Resistance management

• Ease of application

• Weather conditions

• Availability of product

• Availability of equipment

EIQ for Comparing Management Strategies

Conventional Red DeliciousMaterial EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

NovaCaptanLorsbanLorsbanThiodanGuthionCygonOmiteSevinKelthane

65.316.235.035.034.026.349.627.521.726.1

.4

.5

.4

.5

.5

.35

.43

.68

.5

.35

4612123211

0.33.01.53.03.01.52.02.01.04.5

31 24 21105 51 14128 75 11 41

Total field EIQ 501

IPM Strategy, Red Delicious Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

NovaCaptanDipelSevinGuthion

65.316.210.621.726.3

.4

.5

.06

.8

.35

41312

.131.3.731.1.95

13.610.5 1.419.117.5

Total field EIQ 62.1

IPM Strategy, Liberty Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

Imidan 16.1 .5 3 1.5 36.2

Total field EIQ 36.2

Organic Strategy, Red Delicious Apples

Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total

SulfurRot/pyrRyania

26.416.310.6

.9

.04

.001

761

61258

997 47 1

Total field EIQ 1045

SUMMARYStrategy Field EIQ

Organic

Conventional

IPM

IPM on Liberty

1045

501

62

36

Is the EIQ useful for Turf?

• Toxicity and environmental fate characteristics of the pesticides are the same for ag. and turf

• The arrangement of these data in the formula are similar to what would be appropriate for turfgrass

• the EIQ and other quantitative models are the best we can do until there is a model specifically designed for turf

Environmental Impact of Pesticide Applications, Bethpage Project, 2004, expressed as Field EIQ

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

RR Alt.(poa/cb)

RR Alt.(velvet)

IPM Std. IPM Alt. UNR Std. UNR Alt.

Field EIQ (average per green)

2004 2005

(Grant & Rossi 2006)

EIQ Challenges

• Standardization of data & data gaps

• Weighting may not meet criteria of user

• Not site specific

Turfgrass EIQ

• Adjust formula to better reflect turfgrass system – replace bee toxicity with earthworm toxicity– “User” for consumer (e.g. golfer)– Weight factors appropriately for turfgrass– Incorporate TurfPQ?

• Include site specific information such as soil type and water proximity

Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s

• Efficacy

• Economics

• Environmental & health impact