Evaluating the Environmental Effect of Pesticides: A Critique of the Environmental Impact Quotient

Dushoff, Jonathan; Caldwell, Brian C.; Mohler, Charles L.

doi:10.1093/ae/40.3.180

Cited by 44 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This model was used to analyze environmental risk of different pesticides and/or production systems (Fernandez-Cornejo 1998;Edwards-Jones and Howells 2001;Gallivan et al 2001;Ziegler et al 2002;Bues et al 2003;Brimner et al 2005), despite criticism due to simplicity (Dushoff et al 1994). Along with herbicide efficacy, crop safety, and profit margins, the EI can be used as a decision tool to identify the most advantageous weed management strategy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-tolerant corn

Soltani

Eerd²,

Vyn³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

impact and profitability with glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-tolerant corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 125Á132. Eight field trials were conducted over a 3-yr period at Exeter (one site in 2005 and 2006) and Ridgetown (three sites in 2005, two sites in 2006 and one site in 2007), Ontario, to evaluate different postemergence glyphosate tank mixes for weed management in glyphosatetolerant corn. Treatments included a weedy check, a single application of glyphosate, a sequential application of glyphosate and tank mixes of glyphosate plus either atrazine, dicamba/atrazine, mesotrione, s-metolachlor plus atrazine, s-metolachlor/atrazine, dicamba/diflufenzopyr, and dimethenamid plus atrazine. A single application of glyphosate, the sequential application of glyphosate and tank mixes of glyphosate plus either atrazine, dicamba/atrazine, mesotrione, s-metolachlor plus atrazine, s-metolachlor/atrazine, dicamba/diflufenzopyr, and dimethenamid plus atrazine provided 92Á100% control of redroot pigweed, 87Á100% control of common ragweed, 74Á100% control of common lambsquarters, and 43Á100% control of green foxtail. All herbicide treatments had a higher yield than the weedy check. There were no differences in corn yield among the herbicide treatments evaluated. The glyphosate alone or in tank mix combination with mesotrione or dicamba/diflufenzopyr programs had the lowest environmental impact. Glyphosate plus atrazine and dicamba/diflufenzopyr were the most profitable weed management programs in glyphosate-tolerant corn. L'application unique de glyphosate, l'application se´quentielle de glyphosate et l'application des me´langes en cuve de glyphosate et d'atrazine, de dicamba/atrazine, de me´sotrione, de s-me´tolachlor additionne´d'atrazine, de s-me´tolachlor/ atrazine, de dicamba/diflufenzopyr, et de dime´the´namide additionne´d'atrazine de´truisent de 92 a`100 % de l'amarante re´fle´chie, de 87 a`100 % de la petite herbe a`poux, 74 a`100 % du che´nopode blanc et 43 a`100 % de la se´taire verte. Les traitements avec herbicide se soldent tous par un meilleur rendement que la parcelle te´moin non traite´e. Le maı¨s donne le meˆme rendement, peu importe l'herbicide e´value´. Le glyphosate seul ou me´lange´a`du me´sotrione ou du dicamba/ diflufenzopyr a le plus faible impact sur l'environnement. Le glyphosate additionne´d'atrazine ou de dicamba/ diflufenzopyr est le programme de de´sherbage le plus rentable pour le maı¨s tole´rant le glyphosate.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-tolerant corn

Soltani

Eerd²,

Vyn³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EI was designed to provide growers and weed management practitioners with a single number that indicates the magnitude of relative risk. Despite criticism mainly due to simplicity (Dushoff et al 1994), EI has been used effectively by several researchers to compare environmental risk of different pesticides and/or production systems (Fernandez-Cornejo 1998;Edwards-Jones and Howells 2001;Ziegler et al 2002;Bues et al 2003, Lan et al 2003Brimner et al 2005). The EI can be used as a decision tool, along with herbicide efficacy, crop safety, and profit margins to identify the most advantageous weed management strategy in dry beans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability of reduced rates of imazethapyr in combination with dimethenamid in dry beans

Soltani¹,

Eerd²,

Vyn³

et al. 2007

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soltani, N., Van Eerd L. L., Vyn, R. J., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema P. H. 2007. Weed control, environmental impact and profitability of reduced rates of imazethapyr in combination with dimethenamid in dry beans. Can. J. Plant Sci. 87: 671-678. Field experiments were conducted from 2003 to 2005 in Ontario to determine if reduced rates of imazethapyr (< 75 g a.i. ha -1 ) tank-mixed with dimethenamid applied preemergence (PRE) can be used as a feasible weed management strategy for broad-spectrum weed control in white and kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). There was no injury in white or kidney bean with the imazethapyr plus dimethenamid tank-mix treatments evaluated. The rate of imazethapyr required to provide adequate control of green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv.], lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album L.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) tended to be reduced when tankmixed with dimethenamid at 1000 g ha -1 . There was no adverse effect on the yield of white and kidney beans at the highest rate (75 g a.i. ha -1 ) of imazethapyr evaluated. Although both herbicides are considered reduced risk, the environmental impact of imazethapyr (75 g a.i. ha -1 ) was seven times less than that of dimethenamid (1000 g a.i. ha -1 ). The addition of reduced rates of imazethapyr to dimethenamid did not significantly increase environmental impact (EI) vs. dimethenamid alone. Profit margins were greater when dimethenamid was tank-mixed with imazethapyr than for applications of imazethapyr alone. Across all treatments, profit margins were maximized at an imazethapyr rate of 60 g a.i. ha -1 for white bean and an imazethapyr rate of between 60 and 75 g a.i. ha -1 for kidney bean. However, the profit-maximizing rates of imazethapyr tended to be higher for treatments without dimethenamid than for treatments where dimethenamid was tank-mixed with imazethapyr. . Bien qu'on estime que les deux herbicides ne posent pas de grands risques, l'impact de l'imazéthapyr (75 g de matière active par hectare) sur l'environnement est sept fois plus faible que celui du diméthenamide (1000 g de matière active par hectare). L'addition d'une quantité réduite d'imazéthapyr au diméthenamide n'accroît pas sensiblement l'impact sur l'environnement comparativement à l'emploi du diméthenamide seul. La marge bénéficiaire est plus élevée quand on mélange du diméthenamide à de l'imazéthapyr dans le réservoir que lorsqu'on applique ce dernier seul. Pour l'ensemble des traitements, la meilleure marge bénéficiaire pour le petit haricot blanc s'observe avec 60 g d'imazéthapyr par hectare et avec 60-75 g d'imazéthapyr par hectare pour le haricot commun. Néanmoins, le taux d'application le plus rentable d'imazéthapyr a tendance à être plus élevé en l'absence de diméthenamide que lorsqu'on ajoute ce produit dans la citerne.

show abstract

“…The model also fails to consider the effective dose of different pesticides, despite the fact that environmental impacts generally increase with dosage and exposure. Kovach et al (1992) applied a similar approach to develop an environmental impact quotient (EIQ) to help fruit and vegetable growers to choose lowimpact pest control options (for a more detailed critique see Dushoff et al, 1994;Levitan et al, 1995;and Quin and Edwards-Jones, 1997). Pesticides were grouped into low, medium and high categories, on the basis of parameters such as toxicity to bees, ®sh and birds, soil half-life and leaching potential.…”

Section: Eco-toxicological Pesticide Classi®cation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A pesticide should be rejected if it is both more expensive and presents the same or more hazard than its alternatives. Summarising useful information without preempting the judgement of users and policy-makers can be considered an advantage (Dushoff et al, 1994). However, as additional environmental factors are included, trade-offs become harder to evaluate.…”

Section: Eco-toxicological Pesticide Classi®cation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pesticide environmental indicators and environmental policy

Falconer

2002

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating the Environmental Effect of Pesticides: A Critique of the Environmental Impact Quotient

Cited by 44 publications

References 0 publications

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-tolerant corn

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-tolerant corn

Weed control, environmental impact and profitability of reduced rates of imazethapyr in combination with dimethenamid in dry beans

Pesticide environmental indicators and environmental policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About