Avian risk assessments for rodenticides are often driven by the results of standardized acute oral toxicity tests without regards to a toxicant's mode of action and time course of adverse effects. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) generally require multiple feedings over several days to achieve a threshold concentration in tissue and cause adverse effects. This exposure regimen is much different than that used in the standardized acute oral toxicity test methodology. Median lethal dose values derived from standardized acute oral toxicity tests underestimate the environmental hazard and risk of FGARs. Caution is warranted when FGAR toxicity, physiological effects, and pharmacokinetics derived from standardized acute oral toxicity testing are used for forensic confirmation of the cause of death in avian mortality incidents and when characterizing FGARs' risks to free-ranging birds.

Free-ranging wildlife is regularly exposed to pesticides and can serve as a sentinel for human and environmental health. Therefore a comprehensive pesticide hazard assessment must incorporate the effects of actual applications on free-ranging wildlife. Mortality is the most readily reported wildlife effect, and the significance of these data can be realized only when placed in context with the factors that affect the gathering of this type of information. This paper reviews the variables that affect the collection of wildlife mortality data. Data show that most effects on wildlife are not observed, and much of observed mortality is not reported. Delays in reporting or in the response to a report and exposure to multiple stressors distort the exposure-effect relationship and can result in uncertainty in determining the cause of death. The synthesis of information strongly indicates that the actual number of affected animals exceeds the number recovered.

No abstract

The US Environmental Protection Agency conducts risk assessments of insecticide applications to wild birds using a model that is limited to the dietary route of exposure. However, free-flying birds are also exposed to insecticides via the inhalation and dermal routes. We measured azinphos-methyl residues on the skin plus feathers and the feet of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) in order to quantify dermal exposure to songbirds that entered and inhabited an apple (Malus x domestica) orchard following an insecticide application. Exposure to azinphos-methyl was measured by sampling birds from an aviary that was built around an apple tree. Birds sampled at 36 h and 7-day post-application were placed in the aviary within 1 h after the application whereas birds exposed for 3 days were released into the aviary 4-day post-application. Residues on vegetation and soil were also measured. Azinphos-methyl residues were detected from the skin plus feathers and the feet from all exposure periods. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating dermal exposure into avian pesticide risk assessments.

Free-ranging wildlife is regularly exposed to pesticides and can serve as a sentinel for human and environmental health. Therefore a comprehensive pesticide hazard assessment must incorporate the effects of actual applications on free-ranging wildlife. Mortality is the most readily reported wildlife effect, and the significance of these data can be realized only when placed in context with the factors that affect the gathering of this type of information. This paper reviews the variables that affect the collection of wildlife mortality data. Data show that most effects on wildlife are not observed, and much of observed mortality is not reported. Delays in reporting or in the response to a report and exposure to multiple stressors distort the exposure-effect relationship and can result in uncertainty in determining the cause of death. The synthesis of information strongly indicates that the actual number of affected animals exceeds the number recovered.