![Page 1: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Models for Pesticide SelectionJennifer Grant
NYS IPM Program
Cornell University
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/
![Page 2: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s
• Efficacy
• Economics
• Environmental & health impact
![Page 3: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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:
![Page 5: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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)
![Page 6: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Model Complexity
• Ecological impacts (e.g. toxicity to fish, other non-targets)
• Human health impacts
• Site specificity (e.g. soil type, slope)
• Management influences
![Page 8: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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)
![Page 12: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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)
![Page 15: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Applicator + Picker
(C * DT * 5) + (C * DT * P)
Chronic Toxicity
Dermal Toxicity
Plant surface residue half-life
Farm worker Component
![Page 20: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Chronic Toxicity
• Average of Reproductive, Teratogenic, Mutagenic, & Oncogenic effects
• Low value if no evidence of carcinogenicity
• High value if probable human carcinogen
![Page 21: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Dermal Toxicity
• Dermal LD50 rabbits• Dermal LD50 rats
1 = > 2000 mg/kg
3 = 200 - 2000 mg/kg
5 = 0 - 200 mg/kg
![Page 22: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Plant Surface Residue
1 = < 2 weeks
3 = 2-4 weeks
5 = > 4 weeks
Herbicides
Pre-emergent = 1
Post-emergent = 3
![Page 23: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
• Plant half life• Soil half life
Exposure
Persistence
![Page 25: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Fish + Bird + Bee + Beneficials
Ecological Component
Each organism X potential for exposure
![Page 26: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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)]
![Page 27: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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)
![Page 28: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
The poison is in the dose!
![Page 30: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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.
![Page 31: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
EIQ as a Pesticide Selection Tool
![Page 32: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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
![Page 34: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Additional Considerations
• Resistance management
• Ease of application
• Weather conditions
• Availability of product
• Availability of equipment
![Page 35: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
EIQ for Comparing Management Strategies
![Page 36: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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
![Page 37: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
IPM Strategy, Liberty Apples
Material EIQ ai Apps Dosage Total
Imidan 16.1 .5 3 1.5 36.2
Total field EIQ 36.2
![Page 39: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
SUMMARYStrategy Field EIQ
Organic
Conventional
IPM
IPM on Liberty
1045
501
62
36
![Page 41: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
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
![Page 42: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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)
![Page 43: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
EIQ Challenges
• Standardization of data & data gaps
• Weighting may not meet criteria of user
• Not site specific
![Page 44: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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
![Page 45: Models for Pesticide Selection Jennifer Grant NYS IPM Program Cornell University](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070308/551c08f4550346a84f8b4ffe/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Pesticide selection criteria:the 3 E’s
• Efficacy
• Economics
• Environmental & health impact