ChapterPDF Available

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

February 2014

DOI:10.5772/57399

In book: Pesticides- Toxic Effects
Edition: S. Solenski, and M. L. Larramenday
Chapter: Pesticide: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies
Publisher: Intech

Authors:

Harsh Garg

The University of Sydney

…

Figures - uploaded by Harsh Garg

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Harsh Garg

Content may be subject to copyright.

Chapter 8

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management

Strategies

Harsimran Kaur Gill and Harsh Garg

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

1. Introduction

Increase in food production is the prime-most objective of all countries, as world population

is expected to grow to nearly 10 billion by 2050. Based on evidence, world population is

increasing by an estimated 97 million per year (Saravi and Shokrzadeh, 2011). The Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has in-fact issued a sobering forecast

that world food production needs to increase by 70%, in order to keep pace with the demand

of growing population. However, increase in food production is faced with the ever-growing

challenges especially the new area that can be increased for cultivation purposes is very limited

(Saravi and Shokrzadeh, 2011). The increasing world population has therefore put a tremen‐

dous amount of pressure on the existing agricultural system so that food needs can be met

from the same current resources like land, water etc. In the process of increasing crop pro‐

duction, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, fertilizers and soil amendments are

now being used in higher quantities than in the past. These chemicals have mainly come into

the picture since the introduction of synthetic insecticides in 1940, when organochlorine (OCl)

insecticides were first used for pest management. Before this introduction, most weeds, pests,

insects and diseases were controlled using sustainable practices such as cultural, mechanical,

and physical control strategies.

Pesticides have now become an integral part of our modern life and are used to protect

agricultural land, stored grain, flower gardens as well as to eradicate the pests transmitting

dangerous infectious diseases. It has been estimated that globally nearly $38 billion are spent

on pesticides each year (Pan-Germany, 2012). Manufacturers and researchers are designing

new formulations of pesticides to meet the global demand. Ideally, the applied pesticides

should only be toxic to the target organisms, should be biodegradable and eco-friendly to some

extent (Rosell et al., 2008). Unfortunately, this is rarely the case as most of the pesticides are

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

non-specific and may kill the organisms that are harmless or useful to the ecosystem. In general,

it has been estimated that only about 0.1% of the pesticides reach the target organisms and the

remaining bulk contaminates the surrounding environment (Carriger et al., 2006). The

repeated use of persistent and non-biodegradable pesticides has polluted various components

of water, air and soil ecosystem. Pesticides have also entered into the food chain and have

bioaccumulated in the higher tropic level. More recently, several human acute and chronic

illnesses have been associated with pesticides exposure (Mostafalou and Abdollahi, 2012).

Below, we have detailed the effect of pesticides on target and non-target organisms including

earthworms, predators, pollinators, humans, fishes, amphibians, and birds. Additionally,

impact of pesticides on soil, water and air ecosystems is also discussed. Furthermore, an eco-

friendly practice (Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach) has been detailed as a strategy

that could minimize the use of pesticides.

2. Effects of pesticides on target organisms

Over the past era there has been an increase in the development of pesticides to target a broad

spectrum of pests. The increased quantity and frequency of pesticide applications have posed

a major challenge to the targeted pests causing them to either disperse to new environment

and/or adapt to the novel conditions (Meyers and Bull, 2002; Cothran et al., 2013). The

adaptation of the pest to the new environment could be attributed to the several mechanisms

such as gene mutation, change in population growth rates, and increase in number of gener‐

ations etc. This has ultimately resulted in increased incidence of pest resurgence and appear‐

ance of pest species that are resistant to pesticides.

2.1. Pesticide resistance

“Resistance may be defined as a heritable change in the sensitivity of a pest population that is

reflected in the repeated failure of a product to achieve the expected level of control when used

according to the label recommendation for that pest species” (IRAC, 2013). Resistant individ‐

uals tend to be rare in a normal population, but indiscriminate use of chemicals can eliminate

normal susceptible populations and thereby providing the resistant individuals a selective

advantage in the presence of a pesticide. Resistant individuals continue to multiply in the

absence of competition and eventually become the dominant portion of the population over

generations. As majority of the individuals of a population are resistant, the insecticide is no

longer effective thus causing the appearance or development of insecticide resistance.

Resistance is the most serious bottleneck in the successful use of pesticides these days. The

intensive use of pesticides has led to the development of resistance in many targeted pest

species around the globe (Tabashnik et al., 2009). Number of resistant insects and mite

species had risen to 600 by the end of 1990, and increased to over 700 by the end of 2001.

This trend is likely to be continued in 21st century as well. Resistance has been found in

different insecticides groups e.g., 291 species have developed cyclodiene resistance, followed

by DDT (263 species), organophosphates (260 species), carbamates (85 species), pyreth‐

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

188

roids (48 species), fumigants (12 species), and other (40 species) (Dhaliwal et al., 2006).

Important crop pests, parasites of livestock, common urban pests and disease vectors in

some cases have developed resistance to such an extent that their control has become

exceedingly challenging (Van Leeuwen et al., 2010; Gondhalekar et al., 2011). However,

many factors such as genetics, biology/ecology and control operations influence the

development of pesticide resistance (Georghiou and Taylor, 1977).

Insecticide bioassays using whole insects continue to be one of the most widely used ap‐

proaches for detecting resistance (Brown and Brogdon, 1987; Gondhalekar et al., 2013) despite

some associated drawbacks. In the past two decades, however, several new methods employ‐

ing advanced biochemical and molecular techniques, and combination of insecticide bioassays

have been developed for detecting insecticide resistance (Symondson and Hemingway, 1997;

Scharf et al., 1999; Zhou et al., 2002). Some examples of these techniques are enzyme electro‐

phoresis, enzyme assays, immuno-assays, allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) etc.

2.2. Pest resurgence

Pest resurgence is defined as the rapid reappearance of a pest population in injurious numbers

following pesticide application. Use of persistent and broad spectrum pesticides that kills the

beneficial natural enemies is thought to be the leading cause of pest resurgence. However,

resurgence is known to occur due to several reasons, for example, increase in feeding and

reproductive rates of insect pests, due to application of sub-lethal doses of pesticides, and

sometimes elimination of a primary pest provides favorable conditions for the secondary pests

to become primary/key pests (Dhaliwal et al., 2006). There are many pesticide-induced pest

outbreaks reported in walnut (Juglans regia) (Bartlett and Ewart, 1951), hemlock (Conium

maculatum) (McClure, 1977), soybeans (Glycine max) (Shepard et al., 1977), and cotton

(Gossypium hirsutum) (Bottrell and Rummel, 1978). Among these, brown plant hopper (BPH)

(Nilaparvata lugens (Stal)) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation has gained a major importance in

Asian countries (Chelliah and Heinrichs, 1984). In general, natural BPH populations were kept

under check by natural enemies including mirid bugs, ladybird beetles, spiders and various

pathogens. However, pesticides have not only destroyed the natural enemies (Fabellar and

Heinrichs, 1986), but have influenced the fecundity of BPH females (Wang et al., 2010) further

enhancing their resurgence. Additionally, the resurgence of bed bug, Cimex lectularius (Davies

et al., 2012) and cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Mironidis et al., 2013) have been reported

due to insecticide resistance and indiscriminate use of pesticides.

3. Effects of pesticides on non-target organisms

The effect of pesticides on non-target organisms has been a source of worldwide attention and

concern for decades. Adverse effects of applied pesticides on non-target arthropods have been

widely reported (Ware, 1980). Unfortunately, natural insect enemies e.g., parasitoids and

predators are most susceptible to insecticides and are severely affected (Aveling, 1977;

Vickerman, 1988). The destruction of natural enemies can exacerbate pest problems as they

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

189

play an important role in regulating pest population levels. Usually, if natural enemies are

absent, additional insecticide sprays are required to control the target pest. In some cases,

natural enemies that normally keep minor pests under check are also affected and this can

result in secondary pest outbreaks. Along with natural enemies, population of soil arthropods

is also drastically disturbed because of indiscriminate pesticide application in agricultural

systems. Soil invertebrates including nematodes, springtails, mites, micro-arthropods,

earthworms, spiders, insects and other small organisms make up the soil food web and enable

decomposition of organic compounds such as leaves, manure, plant residues etc. They are

essential for the maintenance of soil structure, transformation and mineralization of organic

matter. Pesticide effects on above mentioned soil arthropods therefore negatively impact

several links in the food web. The following are the examples of non-target organisms that are

adversely impacted by pesticides.

3.1. Earthworms

Earthworms represent the greatest proportion of terrestrial invertebrates (>80%) (Yasmin and

D’Souza, 2010) and play a significant role in improving soil fertility by decomposing the

organic matter into humus. Earthworms also play a major role in improving and maintaining

soil structure, by creating channels in soil that enable the process of soil aeration and drainage.

However, their diversity, density and biomass are strongly influenced by soil management.

They are considered as an important indicator of soil quality in agricultural ecosystems

(Paoletti, 1999). Earthworms are affected by various agricultural practices and indiscriminate

use of pesticides is one of the leading practices affecting them (Pelosi et al., 2013).

Pesticide applications can cause decline in earthworm populations. For example, carbamate

insecticides are very toxic to earthworms and some organophosphates have been shown to

reduce earthworm populations (Edwards, 1987). Similarly, a field study conducted in South

Africa has also reported that earthworms were influenced detrimentally due to chronic and

intermittent exposures to chlorpyrifos and azinphos methyl, respectively (Reinecke and

Reinecke, 2007). Various scientific studies reported that pesticides influence earthworm

growth, reproduction (cocoon production, number of hatchlings per cocoon, and incubation

period) in a dose-dependent manner (Yasmin and D’Souza, 2010). Earthworms exposed to

different kind of pesticides showed rupturing of cuticle, oozing out of coelomic fluid, swelling,

and paling of body that led to softening of body tissues (Solaimalai et al., 2004). Similarly a

study carried out in France showed that the combination of insecticides and fungicides at

different concentrations caused neurotoxic effects in earthworms (Schreck et al., 2008).

Increased exposure period and higher dose of insecticides can also cause physiological damage

(cellular dysfunction and protein catabolism) to earthworms (Schreck et al., 2008).

3.2. Predators

Predators are organisms that live by preying on other organisms and they play a very crucial

role in keeping pest populations under control. Predators (beneficial organisms) are also an

important part of the “biological control” approach which is one component of the integrated

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

190

pest management strategy discussed later. In some of the examples cited below, pesticides

were the main cause for decline in predator population:

•In brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) ecosystem, spraying with cypermethrin and imidacloprid

caused higher mortality of coccinellids, braconid wasps and predatory spiders compared

to when sprayed with bio-pesticides and neem (Azadirachta indica) based insecticides

(Ghananand et al., 2011).

•Species diversity, richness and evenness of collembola, and numbers of spiders were found

to be lower in chlorpyrifos treated plots compared with control, in grassland pastures in UK

(Fountain et al., 2007).

•Studies were carried out to investigate the effects of chemicals on soil arthropods in

agricultural area near Everglades National Park, USA. It was found that higher num‐

ber of arthropods (including predators such as coccinelids and spiders) were present in

non-sprayed fields compared to fields sprayed with insecticides and herbicides (Ama‐

lin et al., 2009).

•In foliar application, all the systemic neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid, clothianidin,

admire, thiamethoxam and acetamiprid were found highly toxic to natural enemies in

comparison with spirotetramat, buprofezin and fipronil (Kumar et al., 2012).

Additionally, pesticides can also affect predator behavior and their life-history parameters

including growth rate, development time and other reproductive functions. For example, in

the eastern USA, glyphosate-based herbicides affected behavior and survival of spiders and

ground beetles, apart from affecting arthropod community dynamics that can also influence

biological control in an agroecosystem (Evans et al., 2010). Similarly, dimethoate was shown

to significantly decrease the body size, haemocyte counts and reduction of morphometric

parameters on carabid beetle (Pterostichus melas italicus), in Calabria, Italy (Giglio et al., 2011).

3.3. Pollinators

Pollinators are biotic agents that play a very important role in pollination process. Some of the

recognized pollinators are different species of bees, bumble bees (Bombus spp.), honey bees

(Apis spp.), fruit flies, some beetles, and birds (e.g., hummingbirds, honeyeaters, and sunbirds

etc.). Pollinators can be used as bioindicators of ecosystemic processes (process by which

physical, chemical, biological events help connecting organisms with their environment) in

many ways as their activities are affected by environmental stress caused by parasites,

competitors, diseases, predators, pesticides and habitat modifications (Kevan, 1999). However,

using pesticides causes direct loss of insect pollinators and indirect loss to crops because of the

lack of adequate populations of pollinators (Fishel, 2011).

Pesticide application also affects various activities of pollinators including foraging behaviour,

colony mortality and pollen collecting efficiency. Most of our current knowledge about effects

of pesticides on change in pollinator behaviour has come from various bee studies as they

comprise 80% of the insect pollinator population. For instance, many laboratory studies have

demonstrated the lethal and sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides (imidacloprid,

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

191

acetamiprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, thiacloprid, dinotefuran and nitenpyram) on

foraging behavior, learning and memory abilities of bees (Blacquie`re et al., 2012). Worker bee

(female bees that lack full reproductive capacity and play many other roles in bee colony)

mortality, decreased pollen collecting efficiency and eventually colony collapse occur due to

pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) application (Gill et al., 2012). In addition to this, non-

lethal exposure of honey bees to neonicotinoid insecticide (thiamethoxam) causes high

mortality due to homing failure at a level that could put a risk of colony collapse (Henry et al.,

2012). Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid (the most commonly used pesticide worldwide)

affected longevity and foraging in honey bees (A. mellifera). Nosema ceranae (Nosema invades

the intestinal tracts of adult bees causing colony collapse disorder (CCD) and nosema disease/

nosemosis, which consequently lead to decrease in honey production). Microsporidial

infections increased significantly in gut of bees from imidacloprid treated hives. It has been

anticipated that interactions between pathogens and imidacloprid pesticide could be a main

reason for worldwide honey bee colony mortality, including CCD (Pettis et al., 2012; Wu et al.,

2012). There are also reports that imidacloprid reduced brood production due to decline in the

fecundity of bumble bees (B. terrestris) (Laycock et al., 2012; Whitehorn et al., 2012). On the

other hand, little work has been done on the impact of pesticides on wild pollinators. For

example, a field study carried out in Italy on an agricultural field found lower bumblebee and

butterfly species richness associated with pesticide application. They also found that bees

(insect pollinators) were at higher risk from pesticide use (Brittain et al., 2010).

3.4. Humans

The deleterious effects of pesticides on human health have started to grow due to their toxicity

and persistence in environment and ability to enter into the food chain. Pesticides can enter

the human body by direct contact with chemicals, through food especially fruits and vegeta‐

bles, contaminated water or polluted air. Both acute and chronic diseases can result from

pesticide exposure and these are summarized below:

3.4.1. Acute illness

Acute illness generally appears a short time after contact or exposure to the pesticide. Pesticide

drift from agricultural fields, exposure to pesticides during application and intentional or

unintentional poisoning generally leads to the acute illness in humans (Dawson et al., 2010;

Lee et al., 2011b). Several symptoms such as headaches, body aches, skin rashes, poor concen‐

tration, nausea, dizziness, impaired vision, cramps, panic attacks and in severe cases coma and

death could occur due to pesticide poisoning (Pan-Germany, 2012). The severity of these risks

is normally associated with toxicity and quantity of the agents used, mode of action, mode of

application, length and frequency of contact with pesticides and person that is exposed during

application (Richter, 2002). About 3 million cases are reported worldwide every year that occur

due to acute pesticides poisoning. Out of these 3 million pesticide poisoning cases, 2 million

are suicide attempts and the rest of these are occupational or accidental poisoning cases (Singh

and Mandal, 2013). Suicide attempts due to acute pesticide poisoning are mainly the result of

widespread availability of pesticides in rural areas (Richter, 2002; Dawson et al., 2010). Several

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

192

strategies have been proposed to reduce the incidences that occur due to acute pesticide

poisoning such as restricting the availability of pesticides, substituting the pesticide with a less

toxic but with an equally effective alternative and by promoting use of personal protection

equipment (Murray and Taylor, 2000; Konradsen et al., 2003). Strict laws regulating pesticide

sales along with preventive health programs and community development efforts are needed

to enforce such strategies.

3.4.2. Chronic illness

Continued exposure to sub-lethal quantities of pesticides for a prolonged period of time (years

to decades), results in chronic illness in humans (Pan-Germany, 2012). Symptoms are not

immediately apparent and manifest at a later stage. Agricultural workers are at a higher risk

to get affected, however general population is also affected especially due to contaminated

food and water or pesticides drift from the fields (Pan-Germany, 2012). Incidences of chronic

diseases have started to grow as pesticides have become an increasing part of our ecosystem.

There is mounting evidence that establish a link between pesticides exposure and the inci‐

dences of human chronic diseases affecting nervous, reproductive, renal, cardiovascular, and

respiratory systems (Mostafalou and Abdollahi, 2012). The list of chronic diseases that are

linked to prolonged pesticide exposure by various studies is summarized in Table 1.

Diseases References

Cancer (Childhood and adult brain cancer; Renal cell cancer;

lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL); Prostate Cancer)

Lee et al., 2005; Shim et al., 2009; Heck et al., 2010; Xu et

al., 2010; Band et al., 2011; Cocco et al., 2013

Neuro degenerative diseases including Parkinson disease,

Alzheimer disease

Elbaz et al., 2009; Hayden et al., 2010;Tanner et al., 2011

Cardio-vascular disease including artery disease Abdullah et al., 2011; Andersen et al., 2012

Diabetes (Type 2 Diabetes) Son et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011a

Reproductive disorders Petrelli and Mantovani, 2002; Greenlee et al., 2003

Birth defects Winchester et al., 2009; Mesnage et al., 2010

Hormonal imbalances including infertility and breast pain Xavier et al., 2004

Respiratory diseases (Asthma, Chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease (COPD))

Chakraborty et al., 2009; Hoppin et al., 2009

Table 1. The List of chronic diseases that are linked to the exposure to pesticides

Several mechanisms have been illustrated that link development of chronic diseases with

pesticide exposure. Direct interaction of pesticides with genetic material resulting in DNA

damages and chromosomal aberration is considered to be one of the primary mechanisms that

lead to the chronic diseases such as cancer etc (Mostafalou and Abdollahi, 2012). In this context,

several studies report an increase in frequency of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid

exchange, and breakage in DNA strand in pesticide applicators who worked in agricultural

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

193

fields (Grover et al., 2003; Santovito et al., 2012). Similar to this, pesticides are also known to

induce epigenetic changes (heritable changes without any alteration in DNA sequences)

through DNA methylation, histone modifications and expression of non-coding RNAs. For

example, neurotoxic pesticide paraquat has been implicated to induce the Parkinson's disease

(PD) through epigenetic changes by promoting histone acetylation (Song et al., 2010). Pesti‐

cides may also induce oxidative stress by increasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) through

altering levels of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, glutathione reductase

and catalase (Agrawal and Sharma, 2010). Several health problems such as Parkinson disease,

disruption of glucose homeostasis have been linked with pesticides induced oxidative stress

(Mostafalou and Abdollahi, 2012).

4. Pesticides and soil environment

A major fraction of the pesticides that are used for agriculture and other purposes accumulates

in the soil. The indiscriminate and repeated use of pesticides further aggravates this soil

accumulation problem. Several factors such as soil properties and soil micro-flora determine

the fate of applied pesticides, owing to which it undergoes a variety of degradation, transport,

and adsorption/desorption processes (Weber et al., 2004; Laabs et al., 2007; Hussain et al.,

2009). The degraded pesticides interact with the soil and with its indigenous microorganisms,

thus altering its microbial diversity, biochemical reactions and enzymatic activity (Hussain et

al., 2009; Munoz-Leoz et al., 2011). A summary of the effects of pesticides on its various

components are given below:

1. Pesticides that reach the soil can alter the soil microbial diversity and microbial biomass.

Any alteration in the activities of soil microorganisms due to applied pesticides eventually

leads to the disturbance in soil ecosystem and loss of soil fertility (Handa et al., 1999).

Numerous studies have been undertaken which highlight these adverse impacts of

pesticides on soil microorganisms and soil respiration (Dutta et al., 2010; Sofo et al.,

2012). In addition to this, exogenous applications of pesticides could also influence the

function of beneficial root-colonizing microbes such as bacteria and arbuscular mycor‐

rhiza (AM), fungi and algae in soil by influencing their growth, colonization and metabolic

activities etc (Debenest et al., 2010; Menendez et al., 2010; Tien and Chen, 2012).

The pesticides that reach the soil can interact with soil microflora in several ways:

a. It can adversely affect the growth, microbial diversity or microbial biomass of the soil

microflora. For example, sulfonylurea herbicides- metsulfuron methyl, chlorsulfuron and

thifensulfuron methyl were reported to reduce the growth of the fluorescent bacteria

Pseudomonas strains that were isolated from an agricultural soil (Boldt and Jacobson,

1998). The Pseudomonas spp. is known to play an important ecological role in the soil

habitat (Boldt and Jacobson, 1998), and hence its reduction can adversely affect soil

fertility. Similarly, benomyl, captan and chlorothalonil were reported to suppress the peak

soil respiration (an indicator of microbial biomass) in an unamended soil by 30–50% (Chen

et al., 2001b).

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

194

b. Pesticide application may also inhibit or kill certain group of microorganisms and

outnumber other groups by releasing them from the competition (Hussain et al., 2009).

For example, increase in bacterial biomass by 76% was reported in response to endosulfan

application and that reduced the fungal biomass by 47% (Xie et al., 2011).

c. Applied pesticide may also act as a source of energy to some of the microbial group which

may lead to increase in their growth and disturbances in the soil ecosystem. For example,

bacterial isolates collected from wastewater irrigated agricultural soil showed the

capability to utilize chlorpyriphos as a carbon source for their growth (Bhagobaty and

Malik, 2010).

d. Pesticides can alter and/or reduce the functional structure and functional diversity of

microorganisms, but increase the microbial biomass (Lupwayi et al., 2009). In contrast,

application of pesticides can also reduce the microbial biomass while increasing the

functional diversity of microbial community. For example, methamidophos and urea

decreased the microbial biomass and increased the functional diversity of soil as deter‐

mined by microbial biomass and community level physiological profiles (Wang et al.,

2006).

2. Pesticides may also adversely affect the soils vital biochemical reactions including

nitrogen fixation, nitrification, and ammonification by activating/deactivating specific soil

microorganisms and/or enzymes (Hussain et al., 2009; Munoz-Leoz et al., 2011). The

synergistic and additive interactions between pesticides, micro-organisms and soil

properties ultimately govern increase or decrease in rate of soil biochemical reactions. For

example, populations of the Azospirillum spp. bacteria and the rate of ammonification was

reported to increase at a particular pesticide concentration (i.e 2.5 to 5.0 kg ha-1) in both

laterite and vertisol soils planted to groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). But the tested

pesticides exerted antagonistic interactions on the population of Azospirillum spp. and

ammonification at higher concentrations (7.5 and 10.0 kg ha-1) (Srinivasulu et al., 2012a).

3. Pesticides have also been reported to influence mineralization of soil organic matter,

which is a key soil property that determines the soil quality and productivity. For example,

a significant reduction in soil organic matter was found after the application of four

herbicides (atrazine, primeextra, paraquat, and glyphosate) (Sebiomo et al., 2011).

However, soil organic matter then increased after continuous application from the second

to the sixth week of herbicide treatment.

4. Pesticides that reach the soil may also disturb local metabolism or can alter the soil

enzymatic activity (Gonod et al., 2006; Floch et al., 2011). Soil in general contains an

enzymatic pool which comprises of free enzymes, immobilized extracellular enzymes and

enzymes excreted by (or within) microorganisms that are indicator of biological equili‐

brium including soil fertility and quality (Mayanglambam et al., 2005; Hussain et al.,

2009). Degradation of both pesticides and natural substances in soil is catalyzed by this

enzymatic pool (Floch et al., 2011; Kizilkaya et al., 2012). Due to this, measuring the change

in enzymatic activity has now been classified as a biological indicator to identify the

impact of chemical substances including pesticides on soil biological functions (Garcia et

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

195

al., 1997; Romero et al., 2010). In fact, it has generally been assumed that measuring the

change in enzyme activity is an earlier indicator of soil degradation as compared to the

chemical or physical parameters (Dick et al., 1994). Several studies have already been

undertaken which indicate both increase and decrease in activities of soil enzymes such

as hydrolases, oxidoreductases, and dehydrogenase (Ismail et al., 1998; Megharaj et al.,

1999). A description of pesticides interactions with soil enzymes has been summarized in

Table 2.

Enzyme (Function in

soil)

Examples of the pesticides

applied Comments

Nitrogenase (An enzyme

used by organisms to fix

atmospheric nitrogen

gas).

Carbendazim, Imazetapir,

Thiram, Captan, 2,4-D,

Quinalphos, Monocrotophos,

Endosulfan, γ-HCH,

Butachlors

Pesticide reduced or inhibited the nitrogenase activity in

laboratory or field conditions (Chalam et al., 1996;

Martinez-Toledo et al., 1998; Niewiadomska, 2004;

Niewiadomska and Klama, 2005; Prasad et al., 2011)/

Pesticides stimulated the nitrogenase activity (Patnaik et

al., 1995)

Phosphatase (hydrolyzes

organic P compounds to

inorganic P)

2,4-D, Nitrapyrin,

Monocrotophos,

Chlorpyrifos, Mancozeb and

Carbendazim

Inhibited (Tu, 1981); Activity increased, but higher

concentration or increasing incubation period has

inhibitory effects (Madhuri and Rangaswamy, 2002;

Srinivasulu et al., 2012b)

Urease (catalyzes the

hydrolysis of urea into CO2

and NH3 and is a key

component in the

nitrogen cycle in soils)

Isoproturon, Benomyl,

Captan, Diazinon, Profenofos

Increase in urease activity (Chen et al., 2001a; Nowak et

al., 2004), Pesticide reduced/inhibited urease activity

(Abdel-Mallek et al., 1994; Ingram et al., 2005)

Dehydrogenase (DHA):

(an oxidoreductase

enzyme that catalyzes the

removal of hydrogen)

Azadirachtin, Acetamiprid,

Quinalphos,Glyphosate

Positive/stimulatory influence on the DHA (Singh and

Kumar, 2008; Kizilkaya et al., 2012)/Initially inhibited but

later on activity was restored (Andrea et al., 2000;

Mayanglambam et al., 2005)

Invertase (hydrolyzes

sucrose to fructose and

glucose)

Atrazine, Carbaryl, Paraquat Inhibited invertase activity (Gianfreda et al., 1995; Sannino

and Gianfreda, 2001)

β-glucosidase (hydrolyzes

disaccharides in soil to

form β-glucose)

Metalaxyl, Ridomil gold plus

copper

Enzyme activity increased and then decreased (Sukul,

2006) or inhibited (Demanou et al., 2004)

Cellulase (hydrolyzes

cellulose to D-glucose)

Benlate, Captan, Brominal Inhibited enzyme activity (Arinze and Yubedee, 2000;

Omar and Abdel-Sater, 2001)

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects196

Enzyme (Function in

soil)

Examples of the pesticides

applied Comments

Arylsulphatase (an

enzyme that hydrolyzes

aryl sulfates)

Cinosulfuron, Prosulfuron,

Thifensulfuron methyl,

Triasulfuron

Decreased enzyme activity (Sofo et al., 2012)

Table 2. A summary of the effects of pesticides on different soil enzymes

Several environmental factors control the bioavailability, degradation and effect of pesticides

on soil microorganisms in addition to the persistence, concentration and toxicity of the applied

pesticides. These include soil texture, presence of organic matter, vegetation and cultural

practices (Murage et al., 2007). For instance, a mixture of compost and straw was found to have

the capability of bio-degrading different mixtures of fungicides that are usually applied in

vineyards when tested under laboratory conditions (Coppola et al., 2011). Similarly, persis‐

tence of the herbicide imazapyr was reported to be different in three Argentinean soils (Tandil,

Anguil, and Cerro Azul sites) and its half-life was negatively associated with soil pH, iron and

aluminum content, and positively related with clay content (Gianelli et al., 2013). Additionally,

level of soil moisture is also one of the most important factors that regulates pesticide bioa‐

vailability and degradation, as water acts as solvent for pesticide movement and diffusion,

and is essential for microbial functioning (Pal and Tah, 2012). For example, degradation of

herbicide saflufenacil was found to be faster at field capacity for Nada, Crowley and Gilbert

soils as compared to the saturated soil conditions (Camargo et al., 2013).

It is important to monitor the response of soil microbial communities and various enzymatic

activities to pesticide exposure in order to reduce their deleterious effects. A combination of

both cultivation-dependent (e.g., community-level physiological profiling (CLPP), measuring

overall rates of microbial activity) and cultivation-independent (e.g., DNA sequence informa‐

tion, proteomics of environmental samples) methods can be applied to measure and interpret

the effects of pesticide exposure (Imfeld and Vuilleumier, 2012). With the advent of efficient

new sequencing techniques and metagenomics, the scope of deploying cultivation independ‐

ent methods for measuring bacterial diversity and function in soil ecosystem has been further

increased. Metagenomics approach has been applied already to measure microbial diversity

for a range of soil systems including contaminated sites (Ono et al., 2007) and land managed

with different cultural practices (Souza et al., 2013). Such high-tech approaches hold the key

for future methods to measure the mode of adaptation ecosystem to different pesticides and

in development of new methods to better manage pesticide applications.

A careful screening of pesticide effects on soil microflora should be done in laboratory before

their field applications. This is because pesticides tend to accumulate in soil due to repeated

applications over time and can pose adverse effects on soil microflora even though they are

applied at recommended doses (Ahemad et al., 2009). For instance, Ahemad and Khan (2011)

reported the highest toxicity to plant growth promoting characteristics of the Bradyrhi zobi‐

um sp. when its strain MRM6 was grown with three times the recommended field rates of

glyphosate, imidacloprid and hexaconazole. Similarly, Dunfield et al. (2000) assessed the

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

197

effects of the fungicides captan and thiram at rates of 0.25-2 g a.i. kg–1 on the survival and

phenotypic characteristics of bacteria Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viceae, strain C1. They found

that even though both captan and thiram significantly reduced the numbers of rhizobia

recovered from seed and altered the FAME (fatty acid methyl ester) and biological profiles of

recovered rhizobia, it was only the highest concentrations of captan that affected nodulation

and plant growth. Similarly, herbicide mesotrione affected soil microbial communities, but the

effects were only detected at doses far exceeding the recommended field rates (Crouzet et al.,

2010). Overall, it is crucial to comprehend the role of pesticides in perturbing soil environment,

so that the risk of pesticide contamination and its consequent adverse impacts on soil envi‐

ronment can be evaluated.

5. Pesticides in water and air ecosystem

Pesticide residues in water are a major concern as they pose a serious threat to biological

communities including humans. There are different ways by which pesticides can get into

water such as accidental spillage, industrial effluent, surface run off and transport from

pesticide treated soils, washing of spray equipments after spray operation, drift into ponds,

lakes, streams and river water, aerial spray to control water-inhibiting pests (Carter and

Heather, 1995; Singh and Mandal, 2013). Pesticides generally move from fields to various water

reservoirs by runoff or in drainage induced by rain or irrigation (Larson et al., 2010). Similarly,

the presence of pesticides in air can be caused by number of factors including spray drift,

volatilization from the treated surfaces, and aerial application of pesticides. Extent of drift

depends on: droplet size and wind speed. The rate of volatilization is dependent on time after

pesticide treatment, the surface on which the pesticide settles, the ambient temperature,

humidity and wind speed and the vapor pressure of the ingredients (Kips, 1985). The volatility

or semi-volatility nature of the pesticide compounds similarly constitutes an important risk of

atmospheric pollution of large cities (Trajkovska et al., 2009). For instance, organophosphorus

(OP) pesticides were identified from environmental samples of air and surface following

agricultural spray applications in California and Washington (USA) (Armstrong et al., 2013).

In Italian forests, indiscriminate use of pesticides and its active metabolites has led to the

contamination of water bodies and ambient air, possibly affecting the health of aquatic biota

fishes, amphibians and birds (Trevisan et al., 1993). The following section describes the effect

of pesticides on fishes, amphibians and birds.

5.1. Fishes

Fishes are an important part of marine ecosystem as they interact closely with physical,

biological and chemical environment. Fishes provide food source for other animals such as sea

birds and marine mammals and thus fishes form an integral part of the marine food web. A

lot of research has been carried out to examine the impact of pesticides on decline in fish

population (Scholz et al., 2012). Pesticides have been directly linked to causing fish mortality

worldwide. For example, 27 freshwater fish species are found to be affected by “plant protec‐

tion products” (PPP) in Europe (Ibrahim et al., 2013). Another pesticide pentachlorophenol

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

198

(NaPCP) is reported to cause large numbers of fish mortality in the rice fields of Surinam

(Vermeer et al., 1970). Pesticides not only impact the fish but also food webs related to them.

The persistent pesticides (organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls) have

already been found in the major Arctic Ocean food webs (Hargrave et al., 1992). A survey was

conducted to examine the influence of pesticides on aquatic community in West Bengal, India.

Many body tissues of the fish such as gills, alimentary canal, liver and brain of carp and catfish

were found drastically damaged by pesticides. It was reported that such level of pesticides in

fish could harm the fish consumers as well (Konar, 2011).

Several examples are available where pesticides impacted the vital fish organs and behavior.

Organophosphate pesticide “Abate” has the potential to alter the vitellogenesis (the process

whereby yolky eggs are produced) of catfish (Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch.)), which can

severely affect catfish farming (Kumari, 2012). Another major effect of toxic contaminants is

on olfaction in fishes since it can affect activities such as mating, locating food, avoiding

predators, discriminating kin and homing etc (Tierney et al., 2010). Simultaneous exposure of

trematode parasite (Telogaster opisthorchis), freshwater fish (Galaxias anomalus) and snails to

high glyphosate concentrations significantly reduced their survival and development. Within

24 hrs of exposure to higher glyphosate concentrations, 100% mortality of individuals was

found (Kelly et al., 2010).

The impact of pesticides within an aquatic environment is influenced by their water solubility

and uptake ability within an organism (Pereira et al., 2013). For example, Clomazone, a popular

herbicide, is particularly water soluble; a property that increases its likelihood of contaminat‐

ing surface and groundwater. The hydrophilic (water-loving) or lipophobic (fat-hating) nature

of this pesticide makes it less available in the fatty tissues of an organism (Pereira et al., 2013).

Further to this, the toxicity of chemical (e.g., endosulfan in this case) in juvenile rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) was affected by alkalinity, temperature of water and size of the fish

(Capkin et al., 2006).

Pesticides in natural water within the acceptable concentration range can still pose harmful

effects. Kock-Schulmeyer et al. (2012) found that even if the pesticide levels found in Llobregat

River basin of Spain were within the European Union Environmental Quality Standards, they

still accounted for a low to high ecotoxicological risk for aquatic organisms, especially algae

and macro-invertebrates. Proper measures should be taken while disposing of expired

pesticides, so that their discharge into the water bodies does not danger the aquatic life. This

is because the alteration in water pH by expired insecticides can lead to acute toxicity of

different fish (Satyavani et al., 2011).

5.2. Amphibians

Amphibians are ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates of class Amphibia. They inhabit a wide

variety of habitats, with most species living within fossorial, arboreal, terrestrial, and

freshwater aquatic ecosystems. The global decline in the amphibian population has become

an environmental concern worldwide. Many amphibian species are on the brink of

extinction with 7.4% listed as critically endangered, and at least 43.2% experiencing some

sort of population decrease (Stuart et al., 2004). There could be multitude of reasons for

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

199

decline in amphibian species diversity, but pesticides appear to be playing an important

role. Global warming and climate change are leading to more variable and warmer

temperatures which may have increased the impact of pesticides on amphibian popula‐

tions (Relyea, 2003; Johnson et al., 2013).

Many studies showed that amphibians are susceptible to environmental contaminants due to

their permeable skin, dual aquatic-terrestrial cycle and relatively rudimentary immune system

(Kerby et al., 2010). Several studies showing the impact of pesticides on amphibians are being

mentioned here. It has been reported that the world’s most commonly used herbicide (Round‐

up (Glyphosate)) may have far reaching effects on non-target amphibians (Relyea, 2012).

Roundup, a globally used herbicide caused high mortality of larval tadpoles (3 different species

in North America) and juvenile frogs under natural conditions in an outdoor pond mesocosm

(Relyea, 2005a). Most of the evidence supported the toxic effects of pesticides on juvenile

European common frogs (Rana temporaria) in an agricultural field that was over sprayed.

Mortality of frogs ranged from 100% after 1 hour to 40% after 7 days at the recommended

concentrations of pesticides (Bruhl et al., 2013). It was found that population of the wood frog

(Lithobates sylyaticus) near an agricultural area was more resistant to common insecticide

(chlorpyrifos), but not to the common herbicide (Roundup). However, no evidence was

reported that resistance carried a performance cost when facing competition and the fear of

predation (Cothran et al., 2013).

Further to this, pesticides indirectly affect amphibian populations by influencing growth of

aquatic communities such as fungi, zooplankton, and phytoplankton as they are one of their

prime energy resources. Malathion is the most commonly used broad-spectrum insecticide in

United States. It is legal to spray malathion over aquatic habitats to control mosquitoes (Family:

Culicidae), that vector malaria and West Nile Virus. A study found that even low concentration

of malathion caused direct and indirect effects on aquatic communities (Relyea, 2012). For

example, indirect effect of malathion led to decrease in zooplankton diversity, that led to

increase in phytoplankton, a decrease in periphyton, and finally decrease in growth of frog

tadpoles (Relyea and Hoverman, 2008). Moreover, it was found that repeated applications of

low doses had largest impacts than single high dose application of malathion on an aquatic

system (Relyea and Diecks, 2008). A comprehensive study was conducted to examine the effect

of globally used pesticides including insecticides (carbaryl, malathion, and herbicides (glyph‐

osate, 2, 4-D)) on aquatic communities (algae, 25 animal species). Species richness reduced

differentially, 15% with carbaryl, 30% with malathion, and 22% with roundup, whereas 0%

with 2, 4-D. It was found that Roundup completely eliminated two species of tadpoles and led

to 70% decline in tadpole species (Relyea, 2005b). Another study demonstrated that frogs (Rana

pipiens) living in agricultural area, where they experienced higher exposure to chemicals were

smaller in size and weight than frogs living in area exposed to low-levels of chemicals. It

suggests that frogs living in agricultural areas might have more vulnerability to infections and

diseases due to their smaller size and alternation in their immune system (decrease in number

of splenocytes and phagocytic activity) (Christin et al., 2013).

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

200

5.3. Birds

Birds are a diverse group, and apart from their distinct songs and calls, showy displays and

bright colors adding enjoyment to lives of humans, they play a very critical role in food chains

and webs in our ecosystems. Birds are also called “aerial acrobats” consuming different kinds

of insects such as mosquitoes, European corn borer moth (Ostrinia nubilalis), Japanese beetles

(Popillia japonica), and many other insect species that are considered as some of the most serious

agricultural and health pests. Birds are important biotic components of an ecosystem and help

in maintaining a natural equilibrium of insect populations by predating on them. In absence

of birds, outbreaks of insect pest populations would become more common, ultimately leading

to increased pesticide use. Pesticides exposure by different means such as direct ingestion of

pesticide granules and treated seeds, treated crops, direct exposure to sprays, contaminated

water, or feeding on contaminated prey, and baits cause birds mortality (Fishel, 2011; Guerrero

et al., 2012). In USA, almost 50 pesticides are known for killing song birds, game birds, seabirds,

shorebirds, and raptors (BLI, 2004).

Pesticides have a potential to alter behavior and reproduction of birds. Some of the examples

cited here, using different synthetic chemicals including carbamates, organochlorines, and

organophosphates can cause a decline in the populations of raptorial birds by altering their

feeding behavior and reproduction (Mitra et al., 2011). A large area in the world is under rice

and therefore cultivation and volume of pesticides applied in rice field is quite significant.

Many different kinds of organochlorines, cholinesterase-inhibiting insecticides including

carbofuran, monocrotophos, phorate, diazinon, fenthion, phosphamidon, methyl parathion

and azinphos-methyl along with fungicides, herbicides and molluscicides are being used in

rice fields. Some of these chemicals are highly toxic to birds causing mortality and some

chemicals even have the potential to affect their reproductive systems (Parsons et al., 2010).

Indirect effects of pesticides, through food chain have been proposed as a possible factor in

decline of farmland bird species. Insecticides applied in breeding season can affect breeding

performance of corn bunting (Miliaria calandra) and yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella)

(Boatman et al., 2004).

Pesticides, especially insecticides such as carbamates and organophosphates have the potential

to cause bird mortality due to their high toxicity (Hunter, 1995). Further to this, insecticides

and fungicides pose a most prominent threat to ground-nesting farmland birds as compared

to other agricultural practices. The decline of US grassland birds is attributed to acute pesticide

toxicity and not agricultural intensification as previously thought (Mineau and Whiteside,

2013). An estimate suggests that 672 million birds are directly exposed to pesticides every year

on farmlands, and 10% of these birds die due to acute toxic effects of pesticides (Williams,

1997). A study was conducted in rice fields of Surinam to examine the effects of pesticides,

pentachlorophenol (NaPCP) on birds. NaPCP was sprayed for the purpose of killing Poma‐

cea snails. Large numbers of dead sick/dead egrets, herons and jacana birds were found during

the period of pesticide application. Pentachlorophenol and endrin levels in these birds

suggested that ingestion of contaminated food was the probable cause of sickness and

mortality (Vermeer et al., 1970).

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

201

6. Pesticides and biomagnification

The increase in concentration of pesticides due to its persistent and non-biodegradable nature

in the tissues of organisms at each successive level of food chain is known as biomagnification.

Due to this phenomenon, organisms at the higher levels of food chain experience greater harm

as compared to those at lower levels. Several studies have been undertaken that demonstrate

enhanced amount of toxic compounds with increase in trophic levels. For example, out of 36

species collected from three lakes of northeastern Louisiana (USA) that were found to contain

residues of 13 organochlorines, tertiary consumers such as green-backed heron (Butorides

striatus), and snakes etc., contained the highest residues as compared to secondary consumers

(bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), blacktail shiner (Notopis venustus)) (Niethammer et al., 1984).

Similarly, significantly higher concentrations of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4′-DDE)

were found in the top consumer fish in Lake Ziway, catflish (Clarias gariepinus) than in lower

consumers, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), tilapia (Tilapia zillii) and goldfish (Carassius

auratus) (Deribe et al., 2013). Some of the adverse effects of pesticides on non-target organisms

such as fish, amphibians and humans discussed in the above section have also occurred as a

result of biomagnifications of the toxic compounds. For example, reproductive failure and

population decline in the fish-eating birds (e.g., gulls, terns, herons etc.) was observed as a

result of DDE induced eggshell thinning (Grasman et al., 1998). The extent of biomagnifications

increases with increase in persistence and lipophilic (fat-loving) characteristics of the particular

pesticide. As a result of this, organochlorines are known to have higher biomaginification rate

and are more persistent in a wider range of organisms as compared to organophsphates (Favari

et al., 2002). It is important to do the risk assessments associated with the pesticides on the

basis of their bioaccumulation and biomagnifications before considering them for agricultural

purposes.

7. Strategies for pesticide management

There are a relatively few pesticide resistance management tactics that have been proposed

risk-free and have a reasonable chance of success under a variety of different circumstances.

Headmost among these are: monitoring of pest population in field before any pesticide

application, alteration of pesticides with different modes of action, restricting number of

applications over time and space, creating or exploiting refugia, avoiding unnecessary

persistence, targeting pesticide applications against the most vulnerable stages of pest life

cycle, using synergists which can enhance the toxicity of given pesticides by inhibiting the

detoxification mechanisms. The most difficult challenge in managing resistance is not the

unavailability of appropriate methods but ensuring their adoption by growers and pest control

operators (Denholm et al., 1998; Dhaliwal et al., 2006).

Pest resurgence is a dose-dependent process and there are ways to tackle this problem using

correct dosage of effective and recommended pesticides. Resurgence problem occurs due to a

number of reasons. One of them is due to farmers’ tendency to apply low-dose insecticides

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

202

due to economic constraints that lead to inadequate and ineffective control of pests. Pest

resurgence also occurs due to reduced biological control (most common with insects), reduced

competition (most common with weeds; monocots vs. dicots), direct stimulation of pest (due

to sub-lethal dose), and improved crop growth.

In the current scenario, optimized use of pesticides is important to reduce environmental

contamination while increasing their effectiveness against target pest. This way we can reduce

pesticide resistance as well as pest resurgence problems. This has led to the consideration of

rational use of pesticides, and the physiological and ecological selectivity of pesticides.

Physiological selectivity is characterized by differential toxicity between taxa for a given

insecticide. However, ecological selectivity refers to the modification of operational procedure

in order to reduce unnecessary destruction to non-target organisms (Dent, 2000). Farmers

should focus to use insecticides that are more toxic to target species than their natural enemies

which could help to reduce resurgence to some extent (Dhaliwal et al., 2006).

One should consider adopting an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach for controlling

pests, as these practices are designed to have minimal environment disturbance. The aim of

IPM is not only to reduce indiscriminate pesticide use but also to substitute hazardous

chemicals with safe chemistries. IPM is a process of achieving long-term, environmentally safe

pest control using wide variety of technology and other potential pest management practices.

According to National Academy of Science, “IPM refers to an ecological approach in pest

management in which all available necessary techniques are consolidated in a unified program

so that populations can be managed in such a manner that economic damage is avoided and

adverse side effects are minimized” (NAS, 1969). In European arable systems, applied multi-

disciplinary research and farmer incentives to encourage the adoption of innovative IPM

strategies are essential for development of sustainable maize-based cropping systems. These

IPM strategies can contribute immensely to address the European strategic commitment to the

environmentally sustainable use of pesticides (Vasileiadis et al., 2011). The added cost and time

to do an IPM approach is sometimes a difficult task for growers, but government and extension

services can help in convincing and encouraging growers to go for IPM strategy for eco-

friendly and long term pest control. We have already discussed earlier that continuous use of

pesticides leads to pesticide resistance and pest resurgence problem. To avoid these issues we

can always go for other potential management options that include cultural and physical

control, host plant resistance, biocontrol, and the use of biopesticides etc.

7.1. Cultural control

Historically, cultural control methods were the farmer’s most important tool of preventing

crop losses. Cultural control for pest management has been adopted by growers throughout

the world for a long time due to its environmentally friendly nature and minimal costs (Gill

et al., 2013). Cultural control practices are regular farm operations, which are used to destroy

the pests or to prevent them from causing plant damage. Several methods of cultural control

have been practiced, such as crop rotation, sanitation, soil solarization, timed planting and

harvest, use of resistant varieties, certified seeds, allelopathy, intercropping or “companion

planting”, use of farmyard manure, and living and organic mulches (Altieri et al., 1978; Dent,

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

203

2000; Dhaliwal et al., 2006). Soil solarization (McSorley and Gill, 2010; Gill and McSorley,

2011b) and organic mulches (Gill and McSorley, 2011a) alone and their integration (Gill and

McSorley, 2010) were reported as economical and eco-friendly technique for controlling soil-

surface arthropods (various insects, and nematodes) (Gill et al., 2010; Gill et al., 2011) and

weeds (Gill et al., 2009; Gill and McSorley, 2011b). More effective cultural control can be

achieved by synchronizing existing practices with life cycles of pests. This way the weakest

link in their life cycle is subjected to adverse climatic conditions.

Large insect populations are killed automatically by farmers when they expose them to adverse

climatic conditions through agricultural practices like weeding, ploughing, and hoeing.

Ploughing of agricultural field allows turnover of the upper layer of soil while burying the

weeds and residues from last year. For example, in South Africa, about 70% of overwintering

populations of spotted stalk borer (Chilo partellus) and maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) in grain

sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) fields were destroyed by slashing the

plants. Ploughing and discing of plant residues after slashing further destroyed 24% popula‐

tion on grain sorghum and 19% on maize (Kfir, 1990). Planting dates (Goyal and Kanta,

2005a), and barrier crops (teosinte (Zea spp.) and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.)) (Goyal

and Kanta, 2005b) were found to be effective against maize stem borer (Chilo partellus) in India.

The brown seaweeds Spatoglossum asperum and Sargassum swartzii can be used as manure to

protect plants (tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in this case) from root rotting fungi, (Macro‐

phomina phaseolina, Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium solani) and root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne

javanica) and for providing necessary nutrients to plants (Sultana et al., 2012). In India, rodents

are pests in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry as well as in human dwellings

and rural and urban storage facilities. Cultural methods, such as clean cultivation, proper soil

tillage and crop scheduling, barriers, repellents and proofing that reduce the rodent harbour‐

age, food sources and immigration may have long lasting effects (Parshad, 1999).

7.2. Physical and mechanical control

Managing pest populations using devices which affect them physically or alter their physical

environment is called physical control. Exposure to sun rays, steaming, moisture management

especially for stored grain pests, and light traps for attracting various kinds of moths, beetles

and other pests are different methods used in physical control. For example steaming woolen

winter clothes help in eliminating population of the woolly bear moth, Antherenus vorax

(waterhouse) (Dhaliwal et al., 2006). Hot water treatment of plant storage products like corns,

and bulbs helps to kill many concealed pests such as eelworms and bulb flies. Superheating

of empty grain storage godowns to a temperature of 50ºC for 10-12 hours helps killing

hibernating stored grain pests. Exposure of cotton seeds to sun’s heat in thin layers for 2-3 days

during summer helps in killing diapausing larvae of pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella

Saunders) (Dhaliwal et al., 2006).

Mechanical control refers to suppression of pest population by manual devices. It includes

various practices such as hand picking, trapping and suction devices, clipping, pruning and

crushing of infested shoots and floral parts, and exclusion by screens and barriers to keep away

house flies (Musca domestica), mosquitoes and other pests. In south-eastern Australia, the

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

204

common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) is an established invasive avian pest that is now making

incursions into Western Australia which is currently free of this species. Trapping with live-

lure birds is suggested to be the most cost-effective and widely implemented starling control

technique (Campbell et al., 2012). Numerous wildlife species such as coyotes (Canis latrans

Say), squirrels (Sciuridae family), and birds are known pests of California agriculture in the

United States. For these pests, different non-lethal control options including habitat modifi‐

cation, exclusionary devices, and baiting are generally preferred (Baldwin et al., 2013).

Mechanical weed control is mainly associated with tillage practices which are performed with

special tools such as harrows, hoes, and brushes in growing crops. Increased knowledge about

side effects of herbicides has further driven the interest in adoption of mechanical weed control

thus increasing the prevalence of organic farming (Rueda-Ayala et al., 2010; Jat et al., 2011).

Trapping using yellow colored sticky traps is an effective way for controlling tephritid flies

(Dhaliwal et al., 2006).

7.3. Host plant resistance

Host plant resistance (HPR) is the genetic ability of the plant to improve its survival and

reproduction by a range of adaptations as compared to the other cultivars when exposed to

the same level of pest infestation. HPR offers the most effective, economical and eco-friendly

method of pest control (Sharma and Ortiz, 2002), and is considered to be a key element of the

IPM strategy. Due to this, identifying and developing HPR has always been a major thrust

area of plant breeding, and a number of breeding programs aiming to develop pest resistant

crops have been deployed in almost all the cultivated crop species. For example, identification

and/or development of resistant varieties in maize against European corn borer (Ostrinia

nubilalis (Hubner)) (Dhaliwal et al., 2006) , brassica against cabbage butterfly (Pieris brassicae

Linn.) (Chahil and Kular, 2013), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rye (Secale cereale L.) against

Fusarium diseases (Miedaner, 1997) Brassica sp. against Sclerotinia disease (Garg et al., 2008),

and in rice against bacterial blight (Khush et al., 1989). Additionally, availability and access to

various germplasm collections have increased the scope of widening the gene-pool of culti‐

vated crops and further identifying and developing HPR. Wild species are especially known

to possess a rich repository of genes against various defense traits as they have evolved under

different geographic locations. Considerable progress has been made where identification and/

or transfer of resistance gene from wild to cultivated species against various pest species has

been achieved such as in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) against late blight (Phytophthora

infestans) from ten wild Solanum sp. (Colon and Budding, 1988), wheat against powdery mildew

(Erysiphe graminis) from wild emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccoides) (Reader and Miller, 1991) and

mustard (Brassica juncea) against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum from Erucastrum cardaminoides (Garg

et al., 2010).

7.3.1. Use of biotechnology and molecular approaches for developing resistant genotype

The advent of new biotechnological and molecular approaches has opened the way to develop

resistant genotype that could not only reduce the pesticides application, but it also has a

potential to be a part of IPM. Development of resistant genotypes in classical breeding is met

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

205

with several challenges such as it is time consuming, desired traits are linked with the

undesirable traits (linkage drag) and most importantly lack of resistant genotypes in the gene

pool. On the other hand, use of biotechnology in crop improvement ensures the development

of pest-resistant genotypes in a comparatively short period of time and minimizes the effects

of linkage drag. One of the classic examples where biotechnology was successfully deployed

to develop resistant genotype is by the synthesis of transgenic plants which involves modifying

plant traits by inserting foreign DNA from a different species (De la Pena et al., 1987). A number

of different crops including cotton, rice, mustard, and maize have been modified up to now

to engineer the genotypes against various biotic stresses (Ahmad et al., 2012). One of the most

successful examples of synthesis of transgenic genotype against pest resistance is in cotton

where the gene coding for Bt toxin from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was inserted

leading cotton genotypes to produce Bt toxin in its tissue (Pray et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2008).

The lepidopteran larvae that fed on the transgenic plants were killed due to Bt toxin eventually

decreasing the amount of pesticide applied to the field. Examples of transgenic crops that have

been developed with a potential to reduce pesticides use are abound and few of them include

potato lines against potato tuber moth (Phthorimaea operculella) expressing Cry1Ab (Kumar et

al., 2010), rice against yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas) expressing potato proteinase

inhibitor 2 (Bhutani et al., 2006) and oilseed rape lines resistant to various fungal attack over-

expressing tomato chitinase gene (Grison et al., 1996).

Another strategy where biotechnology and molecular approaches have been deployed to

combat biotic stresses involves the use of RNA interference (RNAi) technique. This technique

primarily uses transgenic plants expressing double stranded RNA (dsRNA) and that reduces

the messenger RNA (mRNA) levels (with a high specificity and fidelity) of a crucial gene in

the target pest upon feeding (Price and Gatehouse, 2008; Kos et al., 2009). This ultimately

interferes with the development and survival of the target pest. RNAi has emerged as a

powerful functional genomics approach and it has been used to engineer several crops against

number of insect-pests. For example, RNAi technique was used in tobacco genotype that

targeted the gene “integrase splicing factor” in root knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita

nematode eventually leading to the decrease in the number of nematodes 6-7 weeks post

inoculation (Yadav et al., 2006). When such an advanced and effective approach is combined

with IPM, it has a great potential to decrease chemical use in agricultural and other ecosystems.

7.4. Biological control

The process of using natural enemies of particular pests to reduce their populations to such a

level where economic losses are either eliminated or suppressed is called biological control.

Traditionally the most important biocontrol agents are parasitoids, predators and pathogens.

Biological control involves three major techniques, viz., introduction, conservation, and

augmentation of natural enemies. Biocontrol agents include vertebrates, nemathelminthes

(flatworms, and roundworms), arthropods (spiders, mites, and insects), pathogens like

viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi and rickettsiae all of which play a dynamic role in natural

regulation of insect and mite populations (Dhaliwal et al., 2006). In 1762, the Indian Mynah,

Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus), was introduced to control red locust in Mauritius. First signifi‐

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

206

cant success in controlling a pest was achieved on the suggestion of C. V. Riley of California

(USA) in 1888. The Vedalia beetle (Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant)), was introduced from Australia

into California (USA) for the control of cottony-cushion scale (Icerya purchasi maskell) on citrus

plants. This scale insect had been accidentally introduced earlier from Australia (Dhaliwal et

al., 2006).

Biological control of weeds has been very successful worldwide. There are about 41 species of

weeds which have been successfully controlled using insects and pathogens as biocontrol

agents. Also, 3 weed species have been controlled using native fungi as mycoherbicides

(Mcfadyen, 2000). A total of 12 insects were released in Australia against prickly pear (Opun‐

tia stricta), out of these, Dactylopius opuntiae and Cactoblastis cactorum were responsible for the

successful control of prickly pear weed (Julien and Griffiths, 1998). In the past decade, Austral‐

ia has released 43 species of arthropods and pathogens in 19 different projects for successful

biological control of many exotic weeds. Effective biological control was achieved in several

projects and outstanding success was achieved in the control of rubber vine (Cryptostegia

grandiflora), and bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) (Palmer et al., 2010).

Examples of biological control are available for other organisms like helminthes, nematodes,

fungi, bacteria etc. A nematophagous fungus (Monacrosporium thaumasium) was found to be

effective in controlling cyathostomin, one of the most important helminthes in tropical region

of southeastern Brazil (Tavela et al., 2011). Trichoderma species are free-living fungi that have

been used to control a broad range of plant pathogenic fungi, viruses, bacteria and nematodes

especially root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita) (Sharon et al., 2011).

7.4.1. Biorational pesticides

Biorational pesticides/ biopesticides are considered as third-generation pesticides that are

rapidly gaining popularity. The word biorational is derived from two words, “biological” and

“rational”, which means pesticides of natural origin that have limited or no adverse effects on

the environment or beneficial organisms. Biopesticides encompass a broad array of microbial

pesticides, plant pesticides and biochemical pesticides which are derived from micro-organ‐

isms and other natural sources, and processes involving the genetic incorporation of DNA into

agricultural commodities. The most commonly used biopesticides include biofungicides (e.g.,

Trichoderma spp.), bioherbicides (Phytopthora spp.), bioinsecticides (spore forming bacteria,

Bacillus thuringiensis, and B. popilliae, Actinomycetes), naturally occurring fungi (Beauveria

bassiana), microscopic roundworms (Entomopathogenic nematodes), Spinosad, insect hor‐

mones and insect growth regulators (Gupta and Dikshit, 2010; Singh et al., 2013).

Applications of microbial insecticide, Chromobacterium subtsugae for suppression of pecan

weevil (Curculio caryae (Horn)), and combination of eucalyptus extract and microbial insecti‐

cide, Isaria fumosorosea (Wize) for control of black pecan aphid (Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Davis))

were found promising as alternative insecticides (Shapiro-Ilan et al., 2013). Entomopathogenic

nematodes (EPNs) belonging to the families Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae are

potentially used in South Africa as biocontrol agents against vine mealybug (Planococcus

ficus (Signoret)) (le Vieux and Malan, 2013). Spinosad was found effective in controlling

Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) in Iran, and is recommended for use in IPM

program for Colorado potato beetle (Soltani and Agricultural, 2011). In China, entomopatho‐

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

207

genic fungus (Beauveria bassiana) has shown great potential for the management of some bark

beetle species including red turpentine beetle (RTB) (Dendroctonus valens LeConte), a destruc‐

tive invasive pest (Zhang et al., 2011).

The allelopathic properties of plants can be exploited successfully as a tool for weed and

pathogen reduction. In a rice field, application of allelopathic plant material @ 1-2 tonne/ha

reduced weed diversity by 70% and increased yield by 20%. Numerous growth inhibitors

identified from these allelopathic plants are responsible for their allelopathic properties and

may be a useful source for the future development of bio-herbicides and pesticides (Xuan et al.,

2005). A combination of coleopteran-active toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Aa protoxin and

protease inhibitors, especially a potato carboxypeptidase inhibitor, have efficiency in prevent‐

ing damage to stored products and grains by stored grain coleopteran pests (Oppert et al., 2011).

7.5. Chemical control

Sometimes cultural and other agro-technical practices are not sufficient to keep pest population

below economic injury level (lowest pest population density that will cause economic crop

damage). Therefore, the chemical control agents are resorted to both as preventive and curative

measures to minimize the insect pest damage. A good pesticide should be potent against pests,

should not endanger the health of humans and non-target organisms, and should ultimately

break down into harmless compounds so that it does not persist in environment. Both relative

and specific toxicities of the pesticide need to be estimated in order to determine its potency.

It is very important to know spray droplet size and density chemical dosage, application

timing, which can provide adequate pest control. There is also a need for research into the

development of suitable packaging and disposal procedures, as well as refining of the

application equipment. All of these shall rationalize the use of pesticides, so that they can be

used in an acceptable way.

Very strict laws should be enacted to protect wildlife and other non-target organisms.

Following directions on the pesticide label can prevent injury to non-target organisms.

However, when these directions are not followed, benefits from pesticides can be outweighed

by the harm and risk associated with pesticides (Fishel, 2011). During pesticide application,

things that need to be considered are timing of insecticide application, dosage and persistence,

and selective placement of insecticides as discussed below.

7.5.1. Timing of pesticide application

The timing of pesticide application is an important factor to consider before doing any pesticide

application. Appropriate application time can ensure not only maximum impact on the target

organisms but also least impact on beneficial organisms. Pesticide application timing mainly

depends on availability of weather window, time at which pests can be best controlled, and

when least damage will be caused to non-target organisms and environment. Flowering period

in crops and middle of the day are the times when bees are more prone to insecticides. Hence,

insecticide application should not happen at those times to avoid decline in bee populations.

Time of insecticide application should coincide with the most vulnerable stage of insect life

cycle. Monitoring of insects in the field is thus extremely important for knowing the stage of

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

208

insect pest in the field. Monitoring systems are available for most of the insect pests, but spray

regime or experiments need to be carried out to determine the most appropriate time for

insecticide application for insects for which monitoring systems are not available (Hull and

Starner, 1983; Richter and Fuxa, 1984).

Time of the day and season of the year are also important to consider when making pesticide

applications. The early morning and evening hours are often the best times for pesticide

application because windy conditions are more likely to occur around midday when the

temperature warms near the ground level. This causes hot air to rise quickly and mix rapidly

with the cooler air above it, favoring drift. During stable conditions, a layer of warm air can

stay overhead and not promote mixing with colder air that stays below and closer to the

ground. Inversions tend to dissipate during the middle of the day when wind currents mix

the air layers. It is very important that applicators recognize thermal inversions and do not

spray under those conditions. A temperature or thermal inversion is a condition that occurs

naturally and exists when the air at ground level is cooler than the temperature of the air above

it. Wind speed is the most important weather factor influencing drift. High wind speeds will

move droplets downwind and deposit them off the target. On the other hand, dead calm

conditions are never recommended due to likelihood of temperature inversions (Fishel and

Ferrell, 2013). Drifting of pesticides increases the possibility of injury to pollinators, humans,

domestic animals and wildlife. It is recommended not to spray in wind speed above 2.5 miles/

second which otherwise can cause excessive drift and eventually contamination of adjacent

areas (Matthews, 1981). Pesticide application should not be made just before rain because

pesticides can be washed off by the rain without any impact on the target pest.

7.5.2. Dosage and persistence

Pesticide dose should be sufficient but no greater than the level required for best results. The

pesticide manufacturer sets the dose to ensure an acceptable level of control, producing

acceptable residue levels, and maximizing returns per unit of formulated insecticide. Persistent

pesticides have their benefit of longer persistence on the target and therefore requires less

frequent spraying compared to non- persistent pesticides. But care should be taken while using

persistent pesticides since these might diminish benefits from natural enemies even at lower

doses. If an insecticide is persistent in nature, chances of insecticide residues being harmful to

natural enemies are greatly increased (Dent, 2000).

7.5.3. Selective placement

Distribution of pesticides in the field should be such that maximum target cover is achieved.

Usually only about 1% of the applied pesticides is able to reach its target, while a large amount

of it is wasted. Understanding the pest biology and behavior is critical as it can provide

information on pest’s habitat, fecundity, feeding etc., which can be important considerations

before applying pesticides. Most of the pesticides are applied in liquid form and thus the

droplet size is very important in determining their effectiveness. Small droplets provide better

coverage and greater likelihood of coming in contact with the target compared to larger

droplets that can bounce off the plant surface very easily. The disadvantage with smaller and

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

209

bigger droplets is the increased chance of drift and therefore a balance has to be considered

between smaller droplets to obtain the maximum effectiveness and reduced drift.

In situations where crops are grown on beds covered with plastic mulch, pesticides should be

injected into soil at the time the plastic is laid or injected afterward through drip irrigation

system to achieve maximum pesticide effectiveness. For termite (Order: Isoptera) treatments,

sometimes perimeter application of insecticides is required around structures/buildings.

Additionally, liquids that form foams following injections can be injected into small spaces

that are or might be inhabited by termites or other small creatures.

8. Conclusion

Although, pesticides were used initially to benefit human life through increase in agricultural

productivity and by controlling infectious disease, their adverse effects have overweighed the

benefits associated with their use. The above discussion clearly highlights the severe conse‐

quences of indiscriminate pesticide use on different environmental components. Some of the

adverse effects associated with pesticide application have emerged in the form of increase in

resistant pest population, decline in on beneficial organisms such as predators, pollinators and

earthworms, change in soil microbial diversity, and contamination of water and air ecosystem.

The persistent nature of pesticides has impacted our ecosystem to such an extent that pesticides

have entered into various food chains and into the higher trophic levels such as that of humans

and other large mammals. Some of the acute and chronic human illnesses have now emerged

as a consequence of intake of polluted water, air or food.

This is the time that necessitates the proper use of pesticides to protect our environment and

eventually health hazards associated with it. Alternative pest control strategies such as IPM

that deploys a combination of different control measures such as cultural control, use of

resistant genotype, physical and mechanical control, and rational use of pesticide could reduce

the number and amount of pesticide applications. Further, advanced approaches such as

biotechnology and nanotechnology could facilitate in developing resistant genotype or

pesticides with fewer adverse effects. Community development and various extension

programs that could educate and encourage farmers to adopt the innovative IPM strategies

hold the key to reduce the deleterious impact of pesticides on our environment.

Acknowledgements

We would like to say special thanks to Drs. Gaurav Goyal (Territory Agronomist, Monsanto),

Ameya D. Gondhalekar (Research Assistant Professor, Purdue University), Siddharth Tiwari

(Entomologist, BASF), and Matthew R. Tarver (Research Entomologist, USDA) for their

valuable suggestions and comments for improving this manuscript.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

210

Author details

Harsimran Kaur Gill1* and Harsh Garg2

*Address all correspondence to: harsimrangill.pau@gmail.com

1 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

2 The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

References

[1] Abdel-Mallek AY, Moharram AM, Abdel-Kader MI, Omar SA. Effect of soil treat‐

ment with the organophosphorus insecticide profenofos on the fungal flora and

some microbial activities. Microbiological Research 1994;149:167-171.

[2] Abdullah NZ, Ishaka A, Samsuddin N, Mohd Rus R, Mohamed AH. Chronic organo‐

phosphate pesticide exposure and coronary artery disease: finding a bridge. IIUM

Research, Invention and Innovation Exhibition (IRIIE) 2011;223.

[3] Agrawal A, Sharma B. Pesticides induced oxidative stress in mammalian systems: a

review. International Journal of Biological and Medical Research (IJBMR)

2010;1:90-104.

[4] Ahemad M, Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA. Remediation of herbicides contaminated

soil using microbes. In: Khan MS, Zaidi A, Musarrat J (eds.) Microbes in sustainable

agriculture. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York;2009. p261-284.

[5] Ahemad M, Khan MS. Effect of pesticides on plant growth promoting traits of green‐

gram-symbiont, Bradyrhizobium sp. strain MRM6. Bulletin of Environmental Contam‐

ination and Toxicology 2011;86:384-388.

[6] Ahmad P, Ashraf M, Younis M, Hu X, Kumar A, Akram NA, Al-Qurainy F. Role of

transgenic plants in agriculture and biopharming. Biotechnology Advances

2012;30:524-540.

[7] Altieri MA, Francis CA, Schoonhoven AV, Doll JD. A review of insect prevalence in

maize (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) polycultural systems. Field Crops

Research 1978;1:33-49.

[8] Amalin DM, Peña JE, Duncan R, Leavengood J, Koptur S. Effects of pesticides on the

arthropod community in the agricultural areas near the Everglades National Park.

Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society 2009;122:429-437.

[9] Andersen HR, Wohlfahrt-Veje C, Dalgård C, Christiansen L, Main KM, Nellemann C,

Murata K, Jensen TK, Skakkebaek NE, Grandjean P. Paraoxonase 1 polymorphism

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

211

and prenatal pesticide exposure associated with adverse cardiovascular risk profiles

at school age. PloS One 2012;7:e36830.

[10] Andrea MM, Peres TB, Luchini LC, Pettinelli Junior A. Impact of long-term pesticide

application on some soil biological parameters. Journal of Environmental Science and

Health B 2000;35:297-307.

[11] Arinze AE, Yubedee AG. Effect of fungicides on Fusarium grain rot and enzyme pro‐

duction in maize (Zea mays L.). Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences

2000;6:629-634.

[12] Armstrong JL, Fenske RA, Yost MG, Galvin K, Tchong-French M, Yu J. Presence of

organophosphorus pesticide oxygen analogs in air samples. Atmospheric Environ‐

ment 2013;66:145-150.

[13] Aveling C. The biology of Anthocorids (Heterophera: Anthocoridae) and their role in

the integrated control of the damson-hop aphid (Phorodon humili Schrank). PhD The‐

sis, University of London;1977.

[14] Baldwin RA, Salmon TP, Schmidt RH, Timm RM. Wildlife pests of California agricul‐

ture: regional variability and subsequent impacts on management. Crop Protection

2013;46:29-37.

[15] Band PR, Abanto Z, Bert J, Lang B, Fang R, Gallagher RP, Le ND. Prostate cancer risk

and exposure to pesticides in British Columbia farmers. Prostate 2011;71:168-183.

[16] Bartlett B, Ewart WH. Effect of parathion on parasites of Coccus hesparidum. Journal

of Economic Entomology 1951;44:344-347.

[17] Bhagobaty RK, Malik A. Utilization of chlorpyrifos as a sole source of carbon by bac‐

teria isolated from wastewater irrigated agricultural soils in an industrial area of

western Uttar Pradesh, India. Research Journal of Microbiology 2010;3:293-307.

[18] Bhutani S, Kumar R, Chauhan R, Singh R, Choudhury VK, Choudhury JB. Develop‐

ment of transgenic indica rice plants containing potato proteinase inhibitor 2 gene

with improved defense against yellow stem borer. Physiological and Molecular Biol‐

ogy of Plants 2006;12:43-52.

[19] Blacquiere T, Smagghe G, Cornelis AM, Gestel van, Mommaerts V. Neonicotinoids in

bees: a review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology

212;21:973-992.

[20] BLI. State of the world’s birds. Birdlife International 2004. (http://www/biodiversi‐

tyinfo.org/default.php.).

[21] Boatman ND, Brickle NW, Hart JD, Milsom TP, Morris AJ, Murray AWA, Murray

KA, Robertson PA. Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds.

Ibis 2004;146:131-143.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

212

[22] Boldt TS, Jacobsen CS. Different toxic effects of the sulphonylurea herbicides metsul‐

furon methyl, chlorsulfuron and thifensulfuron methyl on fluorescent pseudomo‐

nads isolated from an agricultural soil. FEMS Microbiology Letters 1998;161:29-35.

[23] Bottrell DG, Rummel DR. Response of Heliothis populations to insecticides applied in

an area-wide reproduction diapause boll weevil suppression program. Journal of

Economic Entomology 1978;71:87-92.

[24] Brittain CA, Vighi M, Bommarco R, Settele J, Potts SG. Impacts of a pesticide on polli‐

nator species richness at different spatial scales. Basic and Applied Ecology

2010;11:106-115.

[25] Brown TM, Brogdon WG. Improved detection of insecticides resistance through con‐

ventional and molecular techniques. Annual Review of Entomology 1987;32:145-162.

[26] Bruhl CA, Schmidt T, Pieper S, Alscher A. Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphib‐

ians: an underestimated cause of global decline? Scientific Reports 2013;3. (Article

number 1135). DOI:10.1038/srep01135.

[27] Camargo ER, Senseman SA, Haney RL, Guice JB, McCauley GN. Soil residue analy‐

sis and degradation of saflufenacil as affected by moisture content and soil character‐

istics. Pest Management Science 2013;69:1291-1297. DOI:10.1002/ps.3494.

[28] Campbell S, Cook S, Mortimer L, Palmer G, Sinclair R, Woolnough AP. To catch a

starling: testing the effectiveness of different trap and lure types. Wildlife Research

2012;39:183-191.

[29] Capkin E, Altinok I, Karahan S. Water quality and fish size affect toxicity of endosul‐

fan, an organochlorine pesticide, to rainbow trout. Chemosphere 2006;64:1793-1800.

[30] Carriger JF, Rand GM, Gardinali PR, Perry WB, Tompkins MS, Fernandez AM. Pesti‐

cides of potential ecological concern in sediment from South Florida canals: an eco‐

logical risk prioritization for aquatic arthropods. Soil and Sediment Contamination

2006;15:21-45.

[31] Carter AD, Heather AIJ. Pesticides in groundwater: In: Best GA, Ruthven AD. (eds.)

Pesticides- developments, impacts, and controls. The Royals Society of Chemistry,

London, UK;1995. p113-123.

[32] Chahil GS, Kular JS. Biology of Pieris brassicae (Linn.) on different brassica species in

the plains of Punjab. Journal of Plant Protection Research 2013;53:53-59.

[33] Chakraborty S, Mukherjee S, Roychoudhury S, Siddique S, Lahiri T, Ray MR. Chron‐

ic exposures to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides adversely affect respiratory

health of agricultural workers in India. Journal of Occupational Health

2009;51:488-497.

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

213

[34] Chalam AV, Sasikala C, Ramana CV, Rao PR. Effect of pesticides on hydrogen me‐

tabolism of Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Rhodopseudomonas palustris. FEMS Microbiolo‐

gy Ecology 1996;19:1-4.

[35] Chelliah S, Heinrichs EA. Factors contributing to brown planthopper resurgence. Re‐

surgence of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) following insecticide ap‐

plication. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the Pest Control Council

of the Philippines, Philippine International Convention Center, Manila, May

3-6;1984. p36 (mimeo).

[36] Chen SK, Edwards CA, Subler S. A microcosm approach for evaluating the effects of

the fungicides benomyl and captan on soil ecological processes and plant growth.

Applied Soil Ecology 2001a;18:69-82.

[37] Chen SK, Edwards CA, Subler S. Effect of fungicides benomyl, captan and chlorotha‐

lonil on soil microbial activity and nitrogen dynamics in laboratory incubations. Soil

Biology and Biochemistry 2001b;33:1971-1980.

[38] Christin MS, Menard L, Giroux I, Marcogliese DJ, Ruby S, Cyr D, Fournier M, Brous‐

seau P. Effects of agricultural pesticides on the health of Rana pipiens frogs sampled

from the field. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2013;20:601-611.

[39] Cocco P, Satta G, Dubois S, Pili C, Pilleri M, Zucca M, Mannetje AM, Becker N, Bena‐

vente Y, Sanjose SDe, Foretova L, Staines A, Maynadie M, Nieters A, Brennan P, Mili‐

gi L, Ennas MG, Boffetta P. Lymphoma risk and occupational exposure to pesticides:

results of the Epilymph study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine

2013;70:91-98.

[40] Colon LT, Budding DJ. Resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in ten wild

Solanum species. Euphytica 1988;39:77-86.

[41] Coppola L, Comitini F, Casucci C, Milanovic V, Monaci E, Marinozzi M, Taccari, M,

Ciani M, Vischetti, C. Fungicides degradation in an organic biomixture: impact on

microbial diversity. New Biotechnology 2011;29:99-106.

[42] Cothran RD, Brown JM, Relyea RA. Proximity to agriculture is correlated with pesti‐

cide tolerance: evidence for the evolution of amphibian resistance to modern pesti‐

cides. Evolutionary Applications 2013;6:832-841.

[43] Crouzet O, Batisson I, Besse-Hoggan P, Bonnemoy F, Bardot C, Poly F, Bohatier J,

Mallet C. Response of soil microbial communities to the herbicide mesotrione: a

dose-effect microcosm approach. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2010;42:193-202.

[44] Davies TGE, Field LM, Williamson MS. The re‐emergence of the bed bug as a nui‐

sance pest: implications of resistance to the pyrethroid insecticides. Medical and Vet‐

erinary Entomology 2012;26:241-254.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

214

[45] Dawson AH, Eddleston M, Senarathna L, Mohamed F, Gawarammana I, Bowe SJ,

Manuweera G, Buckley NA. Acute human lethal toxicity of agricultural pesticides: a

prospective cohort study. PLoS Medicine 2010;7:e1000357.

[46] De la Pena A, Lörz H, Schell J. Transgenic rye plants obtained by injecting DNA into

young floral tillers. Nature 1987;325:274-276.

[47] Debenest T, Silvestre J, Coste M, Pinelli E. Effects of pesticides on freshwater dia‐

toms. In: Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, Springer, New

York 2010;203:87-103.

[48] Demanou J, Monkiedje A, Njine T, Foto SM, Nola M, Serges H, Togouet Z, Kemka N.

Changes in soil chemical properties and microbial activities in response to the fungi‐

cide Ridomil gold plus copper. International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health 2004;1:26-34.

[49] Denholm I, Birnie LC, Kennedy PJ, Shaw KE, Perry JN, Powell W. The complementa‐

ry roles of laboratory and field testing in ecotoxicological risk assessment. The 1998

Brighton Conferences: Pest and Diseases Volume 2. British Crop Protection Council,

Farham, UK;1998. p583-590.

[50] Dent D. Cultural and interference methods. In: Insect pest management, 2nd edition.

CABI publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA;2000. p235-266.

[51] Deribe E, Rosseland BO, Borgstrom R, Salbu B, Gebremariam Z, Dadebo E, Skipper‐

ud L, Eklo OM. Biomagnification of DDT and its metabolites in four fish Research

2010;117:51-58species of a tropical lake. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

2013;95:10-18.

[52] Dhaliwal GS, Singh R, Chhillar BS. In: Essentials of agricultural entomology. Kalyani

Publishers, New Delhi, India;2006.

[53] Dick RP. Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. In: Doran JW, Coleman

DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA. (eds.) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environ‐

ment, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. 1994;p107-124.

[54] Dunfield KE, Siciliano SD, Germida JJ. The fungicides thiram and captan affect the

phenotypic characteristics of Rhizobium leguminosarum strain C1 as determined by

FAME and Biolog analyses. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2000;31:303-309.

[55] Dutta M, Sardar D, Pal R, Kole RK. Effect of chlorpyrifos on microbial biomass and

activities in tropical clay loam soil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

2010;160:385-391.

[56] Edwards CA. The environmental impact of insecticides. In: Delucchi V (ed.) Integrat‐

ed pest management, Protection Integŕee Quo vadis? An International Perspective.

Parasitis 86, Geneva, Switzerland;1987. p309-329.

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

215

[57] Elbaz A, Clavel J, Rathouz PJ, Moisan F, Galanaud JP, Delemotte B, Alperovitch A,

Tzourio C. Professional exposure to pesticides and Parkinson disease. Annals of

Neurology 2009;66:494-504.

[58] Evans SC, Shaw EM, Rypstra AL. Exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide affects

agrobiont predatory arthropod behavior and long-term survival. Ecotoxicology

2010;19:1249-1257.

[59] Fabellar LT, Heinrichs EA. Relative toxicity of insecticides to rice planthopper and

leafhoppers and their predators. Crop Protection 1986;5:254-258.

[60] Favari L, Lopez E, Martinez-Tabche L, Dıaz-Pardo E. Effect of insecticides on plank‐

ton and fish of Ignacio Ramirez reservoir (Mexico): a biochemical and biomagnifica‐

tion study. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2002;51:177-186.

[61] Fishel FM, Ferrell JA. Managing pesticide drift. Agronomy department. PI232 Uni‐

versity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;2013 (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi232) (accessed

14 October 2013).

[62] Fishel FM. Pesticides effects on nontarget organisms. PI-85. Pesticide information of‐

fice, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville,

FL, USA; 2011. (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi122) (accessed 14 October 2013).

[63] Floch C, Chevremont AC, Joanico K, Capowiez Y, Criquet S. Indicators of pesticide

contamination: Soil enzyme compared to functional diversity of bacterial communi‐

ties via Biolog® Ecoplates. European Journal of Soil Biology 2011;47:256-263.

[64] Fountain MT, Brown VK, Gang AC, Symondson WOC, Murray PJ. The effect of the

insecticide chlorpyrifos on spider and collembolan communities. Pedobiologia

2007;51:147-158.

[65] Garcia C, Hernandez T, Costa F. Potential use of dehydrogenase activity as an index

of microbial activity in degraded soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis 1997;28:123-134.

[66] Garg, H, Atri C, Sandhu PS, Kaur B, Renton M, Banga SK, Singh H, Singh C, Barbetti,

MJ, Banga, SS. High level of resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in introgression lines

derived from wild crucifers and the crop Brassica species B. napus and B. juncea. Field

Crops Research 2010;117:51-58.

[67] Garg H, Sivasithamparam K, Banga SS, Barbetti, MJ. Cotyledon assay as a rapid and

reliable method of screening for resistance against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in Brassica

napus genotypes. Australasian Plant Pathology 2008;37:106-111.

[68] Georghiou GP, Taylor CE. Genetic and biological influences in evolution of insecti‐

cide resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology 1977;70:319-323.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

216

[69] Ghananand T, Prasad CS, Lok N. Effect of insecticides, bio-pesticides and botanicals

on the population of natural enemies in brinjal ecosystem. Vegetos- An International

Journal of Plant Research 2011;24:40-44.

[70] Gianelli VR, Bedmar F, Luis J. Persistence and sorption of imazapyr in three Argenti‐

nean soils. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2013. DOI:10.1002/etc.2400.

[71] Gianfreda L, Sannino F, Violante A. Pesticide effects on the activity of free, immobi‐

lized and soil invertase. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1995;27:1201-1208.

[72] Giglio A, Giulianini PG, Zetto T, Talarico F. Effects of the pesticide dimethoate on a

non-target generalist carabid, Pterostichus melas italicus (Dejean, 1828) (Coleop‐

tera:Carabidae). Italian Journal of Zoology 2011;78:471-477.

[73] Gill HK, McSorley R, Branham M. Effect of organic mulches on soil surface insects

and arthropods. Florida Entomologist 2011;94:226-232.

[74] Gill HK, McSorley R, Goyal G, Webb SE. Mulch as a potential management strategy

for lesser cornstalk borer, Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in

bush bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Florida Entomologist 2010;93:183-190.

[75] Gill HK, McSorley R, Goyal G. Soil Solarization and organic mulches: tools for pest

management. In: Dhawan AK, Singh B, Brar-Bhullar M, Arora R (eds.). Integrated

pest management. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India;2013. p301-324.

[76] Gill HK, McSorley R, Treadwell DD. Comparative performance of different plastic

films for soil solarization and weed suppression. HortTechnology 2009;19:769-774.

[77] Gill HK, McSorley R. Effect of integrating soil solarization and organic mulching on

the soil surface insect community. Florida Entomologist 2010;93:308-309.

[78] Gill HK, McSorley R. Impact of different organic mulches on the soil surface arthro‐

pod community and weeds. International Journal of Pest Management 2011(a);

58:33-40.

[79] Gill HK, McSorley R. Effect of different inorganic/synthetic mulches on weed sup‐

pression during soil solarization. Proceeding of Florida State Horticultural Society

2011(b);124:310-313.

[80] Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine NE. Combined pesticide exposure severely af‐

fects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 2012;491:105-108.

[81] Gondhalekar AD, Scherer CW, Saran RK, Scharf ME. Implementation of an indoxa‐

carb susceptibility monitoring program using field-collected German cockroach iso‐

lates from the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 2013;106:945–953.

[82] Gondhalekar AD, Song C, Scharf, ME. Development of strategies for monitoring in‐

doxacarb and gel bait susceptibility in the German cockroach (Blattodea: Blattelli‐

dae). Pest Management Science 2011;67:262-270.

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

217

[83] Goyal G, Kanta U. Influence of time and method of sowing of kharif maize on the

incidence of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Journal of Insect Science 2005a;19:24-29.

[84] Goyal G, Kanta U. Influence of barrier crops on the incidence of Chilo partellus (Swin‐

hoe) in kharif maize. Journal of Insect Science 2005b;19:54-58.

[85] Gonod LV, Martin‐Laurent F, Chenu C. 2, 4‐D impact on bacterial communities, and

the activity and genetic potential of 2, 4‐D degrading communities in soil. FEMS Mi‐

crobiology Ecology 2006;58:529-537.

[86] Grasman KA, Scanlon PF, Fox GA. Reproductive and physiological effects of envi‐

ronmental contaminants in fish-eating birds of the Great Lakes: a review of historical

trends. In: Trends in levels and effects of persistent toxic substances in the Great

Lakes, Springer, Netherlands;1998. p117-145.

[87] Greenlee AR, Arbuckle TE, Chyou PH. Risk factors for female infertility in an agri‐

cultural region. Epidemiology 2003;14:429-436.

[88] Grison R, Grezes-Besset B, Schneider M, Lucante N, Olsen L, Leguay JJ, Toppan A.

Field tolerance to fungal pathogens of Brassica napus constitutively expressing a chi‐

meric chitinase gene. Nature Biotechnology 1996;14:643-646.

[89] Grover P, Danadevi K, Mahboob M, Rozati R, Banu BS, Rahman MF. Evaluation of

genetic damage in workers employed in pesticide production utilizing the Comet as‐

say. Mutagenesis 2003;18:201-205.

[90] Guerrero I, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Geige, F, Berendse F, Snoo GD, Tscharntke T. Re‐

sponse of ground-nesting farmland birds to agricultural intensification across Eu‐

rope: Landscape and field level management factors. Biological Conservation

2012;152:74-80.

[91] Gupta S, Dikshit AK. Biopesticides: An eco-friendly approach for pest control. Jour‐

nal of Biopesticides 2010;3:186-188.

[92] Handa SK, Agnihotri NP, Kulshreshtha G. Effect of pesticide on soil fertility. In: Pes‐

ticide residues; significance, management and analysis 1999;184-198.

[93] Hargrave BT, Harding GC, Vass WP, Erickson PE, Fowler BR, Scott V. Organochlor‐

ine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in the Arctic Ocean food web. Archives

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 1992;22:41-54.

[94] Hayden KM, Norton MC, Darcey D, Østbye T, Zandi PP, Breitner JCS, Welsh-Bohm‐

er KA. Occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of incident AD The

Cache County Study. Neurology 2010;74:1524-1530.

[95] Heck JE, Charbotel B, Moore LE, Karami S, Zaridze DG, Matveev V, Janout V, Kollar‐

ova H, Foretova L, Bencko V, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Lissowska J, Mates D, Ferro

G, Chow W-H, Rothman N, Stewart P, Brennan P, Boffetta P. Occupation and renal

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

218

cell cancer in Central and Eastern Europe. Occupational and Environmental Medi‐

cine 2010;67:47-53.

[96] Henry M, Bèguin M, Requier F, Rollin O, Odoux J-F, Aupinel P, Aptel J, Tchamitch‐

ian S, Decourtye A. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in

honey bees. Science 2012;336:348-350.

[97] Hoppin JA, Umbach DM, London SJ, Henneberger PK, Kullman GJ, Coble J, Alavan‐

ja MCR, Freeman LEB, Sandler DP. Pesticide use and adult-onset asthma among

male farmers in the agricultural health study. European Respiratory Journal

2009;34:1296-1303.

[98] Hull LA, Starner R van. Effectiveness of insecticide applications timed to correspond

with the development of rosy apple aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) on apple. Journal

of Economic Entomology 1983;76:594-59.

[99] Hunter K. The poisoning of non-target animals. In: Best GA, Ruthven AD (eds.) Pes‐

ticides- developments, impacts, and controls. The Royals Society of Chemistry, Lon‐

don, UK;1995. p74-86.

[100] Hussain S, Siddique T, Saleem M, Arshad M, Khalid A. Impact of pesticides on soil

microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical reactions. Advances in Agronomy

2009;102:159-200.

[101] Ibrahim L, Preuss TG, Ratte HT, Hommen U. A list of fish species that are potentially

exposed to pesticides in edge-of-field water bodies in the European Union-a first step

towards identifying vulnerable representatives for risk assessment. Environmental

Science and Pollution Research 2013;20:2679-2687.

[102] Imfeld G, Vuilleumier S. Measuring the effects of pesticides on bacterial communities

in soil: a critical review. European Journal of Soil Biology 2012;49:22-30.

[103] Ingram CW, Coyne MS, Williams DW. Effects of commercial diazinon and imidaclo‐

prid on microbial urease activity in soil. Journal of Environmental Quality

2005;34:1573-1580.

[104] IRAC. Resistance management for sustainable agriculture and improved public

health;2013. (http://www.irac-online.org/).

[105] Ismail BS, Yapp KF, Omar O. Effects of metsulfuron-methyl on amylase, urease, and

protease activities in two soils. Australian Journal of Soil Research 1998;36:449–456.

[106] Jat RS, Meena HN, Singh AL, Surya JN, Misra JB. Weed management in groundnut

(Arachis hypogaea L.) in India-a review. Agricultural Reviews 2011;32:155-171.

[107] Johnson LA, Welch B, Whitfield SM. Interactive effects of pesticide mixtures, preda‐

tors, and environmental regimes on the toxicity of two pesticides to red-eyed tree

frog larvae. Environmental Toxicology 2013;32:2379-2386.

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

219

[108] Julien MH, Griffiths MW. Biological Control of Weeds: a world catalogue of agents

and their target weeds. Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International, 4th ed.;1998. p223.

[109] Kelly DW, Poulin R, Tompkins DM, Townsend C. Synergistic effects of glyphosate

formulations and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. Journal of

Applied Ecology 2010;47:498-504.

[110] Kerby JL, Richards-Hrdlicka KL, Storfer A, Skelly DK. An examination of amphibian

sensitivity to environmental contaminants: are amphibians poor canaries? Ecology

Letters 2010;13:60-67.

[111] Kevan PG. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environments: species, ac‐

tivity and diversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1999;74:373-393.

[112] Kfir R. Prospects for cultural control of the stalk borers, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) and

Busseola fusca (Fuller), in summer grain crops in South Africa. Journal of Entomologi‐

cal Society of Southern Africa 1990;53:41-47.

[113] Khush GS, Mackill DJ, Sidhu GS. Breeding rice for resistance to bacterial blight. In:

Bacterial Blight of Rice, Manila, Philippines, International Rice Research Insti‐

tute1989. p207-217.

[114] Kips RH. Environmental aspects. In: Haskell PT (ed.) Pesticide application: principles

and practice. Clarendon Press, Oxford;1985. p190-201.

[115] Kizilkaya R, Akça İ, Aşkın T, Yılmaz R, Olekhov V, Samofalovaf I, Mudrykh N. Ef‐

fect of soil contamination with azadirachtin on dehydrogenase and catalase activity

of soil. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science 2012;1:98-103.

[116] Köck-Schulmeyer M, Ginebreda A, González S, Cortina JL, de Alda ML, Barceló D.

Analysis of the occurrence and risk assessment of polar pesticides in the Llobregat

River Basin (NE Spain). Chemosphere 2012;86:8-16.

[117] Konar SK. Pesticides and aquatic environment. Indian Journal of Fisheries

2011;80-85.

[118] Konradsen F, Van der HW, Cole DC, Hutchinson G, Daisley H, Singh S, Eddleston

M. Reducing acute poisoning in developing countries-options for restricting the

availability of pesticides. Toxicology 2003;192:249-261.

[119] Kos M, van Loon JJ, Dicke M, Vet LE. Transgenic plants as vital components of inte‐

grated pest management. Trends in Biotechnology 2009;27:621-627.

[120] Kumar M, Chimote V, Singh R, Mishra GP, Naik PS, Pandey Sk, Chakrabarti SK. De‐

velopment of Bt transgenic potatoes for effective control of potato tuber moth by us‐

ing cry1Ab gene regulated by GBSS promoter. Crop Protection 2010;29:121-127.

[121] Kumar R, Kranthi S, Nitharwal M, Jat SL, Monga D. Influence of pesticides and ap‐

plication methods on pest and predatory arthropods associated with cotton. Phyto‐

parasitica 2012;40:417-424.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

220

[122] Kumari M. Effects of organophosphate pesticide Abate on the ovary of the cat fish,

Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch.). Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 2012;40:207-212.

[123] Laabs V, Wehrhan A, Pinto A, Dores E, Amelung W. Pesticide fate in tropical wet‐

lands of Brazil: An aquatic microcosm study under semi-field conditions. Chemo‐

sphere 2007;67:975-989.

[124] Larson SJ, Capel PD, Majewski M. Pesticides in surface waters: Distribution, trends,

and governing factors (No. 3). CRC Press;2010.

[125] Laycock I, Lenthall KM, Barratt AT, Cresswell JE. Effects of imidacloprid, a neonico‐

tinoid pesticide, on reproduction in worker bumble bees (Bombus terrestris). Ecotoxi‐

cology 2012;21:1937-1945.

[126] le Vieux PD, Malan AP. An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in

South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential bi‐

ocontrol agent. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 2013;34:108-118.

[127] Lee DH, Lind PM, Jacobs DR, Salihovic S, van Bavel B, Lind L. Polychlorinated bi‐

phenyls and organochlorine pesticides in plasma predict development of type 2 dia‐

betes in the elderly. The Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala

Seniors (PIVUS) study. Diabetes Care 2011a;34:1778-1784.

[128] Lee SJ, Mehler L, Beckman J, Diebolt-Brown B, Prado J, Lackovic M, Waltz J, Mulay

P, Schwartz A, Mitchell Y, Moraga-McHaley S, Gergely R, Calvert GM. Acute pesti‐

cide illnesses associated with off-target pesticide drift from agricultural applications:

11 States, 1998-2006. Environmental Health Perspectives 2011b;119:1162.

[129] Lee WJ, Colt JS, Heineman EF, McComb R, Weisenburger DD, Lijinsky W, Ward

MH. Agricultural pesticide use and risk of glioma in Nebraska, United States. Occu‐

pational and Environmental Medicine 2005;62:786-792.

[130] Lupwayi NZ, Harker KN, Clayton GW, O’Donovan JT, Blackshaw RE. Soil microbial

response to herbicides applied to glyphosate-resistant canola. Agriculture Ecosystem

and Environment 2009;129:171-176.

[131] Madhuri RJ, Rangaswamy V. Influence of selected insecticides on phosphatase activi‐

ty in groundnut (Arachis hypogeae L.) soil. Journal of Environmental Biology

2002;23:393-397.

[132] Martinez-Toledo MV, Salermon V, Rodelas B, Pozo C, Gonzalez-Lopez J. Effects of

the fungicide captan on some functional groups of soil microflora. Applied Soil Ecol‐

ogy 1998;7:245-255.

[133] Matthews GA. Improved systems of pesticide application. Philosophical Transac‐

tions of the Royal Society B 1981;295:163-173.

[134] Mayanglambam T, Vig K, Singh DK. Quinalphos persistence and leaching under

field conditions and effects of residues on dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphomo‐

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

221

noesterases activities in soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicolo‐

gy 2005;75:1067-1076.

[135] McClure MS. Resurgence of the scale, Fiorinia externa (Homoptera: Diaspididae) on

hemlock following insecticide application. Environmental Entomology

1977;6:480-484.

[136] Mcfadyen REC. Successes in biological control of weeds. Proceedings of the X Inter‐

national Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 3. Montana State University,

Bozeman, Montana, USA. Neal RS (ed.);2000. p3-14.

[137] McSorley R, Gill HK. Introduction to soil solarization. ENY-062, Department of Ento‐

mology and Nematology, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;2010. (http://

edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in856) (accessed 14 October 2013).

[138] Megharaj M, Boul HL, Thiele JH. Effects of DDT and its metabolites on soil algae and

enzymatic activity. Biology and Fertility of Soils 1999;29:130-134.

[139] Menendez A, Martínez A, Chiocchio V, Venedikian N, Ocampo J A, Godeas A. Influ‐

ence of the insecticide dimethoate on arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization and

growth in soybean plants. International Microbiology 2010;2:43-45.

[140] Mesnage R, Clair E, de Vendômois JS, Seralini GE. Two cases of birth defects over‐

lapping Stratton-Parker syndrome after multiple pesticide exposure. Occupational

and Environmental Medicine 2010;67:359-359.

[141] Meyers L, Bull J. Fighting change with change: adaptive variation in an uncertain

world. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2002;17:551-557.

[142] Miedaner T. Breeding wheat and rye for resistance to Fusarium diseases. Plant Breed‐

ing 1997;116: 201-220.

[143] Mineau P, Whiteside M. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of US grassland

bird declines than agricultural intensification. PloS One 2013;8:e57457.

[144] Mironidis GK, Kapantaidaki D, Bentila M, Morou E, Savopoulou‐Soultani M, Vontas

J. Resurgence of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera in northern Greece associ‐

ated with insecticide resistance. Insect Science 2013;20:505-512.

[145] Mitra A, Chatterjee C, Mandal FB. Synthetic chemical pesticides and their effects on

birds. Research Journal of Environmental Toxicology 2011;5:81-96.

[146] Mostafalou S, Abdollahi M. Concerns of environmental persistence of pesticides and

human chronic diseases. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology 2012;S5:e002.

(http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-1459.S5-e002 ).

[147] Munoz-Leoz B, Ruiz-Romera E, Antiguedad I, Garbisu C. Tebuconazole application

decreases soil microbial biomass and activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry

2011;43:2176-2183.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

222

[148] Murage EW, Voroney PR, Kay BD, Deen B, Beyaert RP. Dynamics and turnover of

soil organic matter as affected by tillage. Soil Science Society of American Journal

2007;71:1363-1370.

[149] Murray DL, Taylor PL. Claim no easy victories: evaluating the pesticide industry’s

Global Safe Use campaign. World Development 2000;28:1735-1749.

[150] NAS. Principles of plant and animal pest control, Vol. 3. Insect management and con‐

trol. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA;1969.

[151] Niethammer KR, White DH, Baskett TS, Sayre MW. Presence and biomagnification

of organochlorine chemical residues in oxbow lakes of northeastern Louisiana. Ar‐

chives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 1984;13:63-74.

[152] Niewiadomska A, Klama J. Pesticide side effect on the symbiotic efficiency and nitro‐

genase activity of Rhizobiaceae bacteria family. Polish Journal of Microbiology

2005;54:43-48.

[153] Niewiadomska A. Effect of carbendazim, imazetapir and thiramon nitrogenase activ‐

ity, the number of microorganisms in soil and yield of red clover (Trifolium pretense

L). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 2004;13:403-410.

[154] Nowak A, Nowak J, Klodka D, Pryzbulewska K, Telesinski A, Szopa E. Changes in

the microflora and biological activity of the soil during the degradation of isoprotur‐

on. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 2004;19:1003-1016.

[155] Omar SA, Abdel-Sater MA. Microbial populations and enzyme activities in soil,

treated with pesticides. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 2001;127:49-63.

[156] Ono A, Miyazaki R, Sota M, Ohtsubo Y, Nagata Y, Tsuda M. Isolation and characteri‐

zation of naphthalene-catabolic genes and plasmids from oil contaminated soil by us‐

ing two cultivation-independent approaches. Applied Microbiology and

Biotechnology 2007;74:501-510.

[157] Oppert B, Morgan TD, Kramer KJ. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Aa protoxin

and protease inhibitors against coleopteran storage pests. Pest Management Science

2011;67:568-573.

[158] Pal R, Tah J. Biodegradation and bioremediation of pesticides in Soil: Its objectives,

classification of pesticides, factors and recent developments. World Journal of Sci‐

ence and Technology 2012;2:36-41.

[159] Palmer WA, Heard TA, Sheppard AW. A review of Australian classical biological

control of weeds programs and research activities over the past 12 years. Biological

Control 2010;52:271-287.

[160] Pan-Germany. Pesticide and health hazards. Facts and figures. 2012;1-16 (www.pan

germany.org/download/Vergift_EN-201112-web.pdf) (accessed on 14 October 2013).

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

223

[161] Paoletti MG. Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape sustaina‐

bility. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1999;74:1-18.

[162] Parshad VR. Rodent control in India. Integrated Pest Management Reviews

1999;4:97-126.

[163] Parsons KC, Mineau P, Renfrew RB. Effects of pesticide use in rice fields on birds.

Waterbirds 2010;33:193-218.

[164] Patnaik GK, Kanungo PK, Moorthy BTS, Mahana PK, Adhya TK, Rao VR. Effect of

herbicides on nitrogen-fixation (C2H2 reduction) associated with rice rhizosphere.

Chemosphere 1995;30:339-343.

[165] Pelosi C, Barot S, Capowiez Y, Hedde M, Vandenbulcke F. Pesticides and earth‐

worms. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2013;1-30. DOI:10.1007/

s13593-013-0151-z.

[166] Pereira L, Fernandes MN, Martinez CB. Hematological and biochemical alterations in

the fish Prochilodus lineatus caused by the herbicide clomazone. Environmental Toxi‐

cology and Pharmacology 2013;36:1-8.

[167] Petrelli G, Mantovani A. Environmental risk factors and male fertility and reproduc‐

tion. Contraception 2002;65:297-300.

[168] Pettis JS, van Engelsdorp D, Johnson J, Dively G. Pesticide exposure in honey bees

results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema. Naturwissenschaften

2012;99:153-158.

[169] Prasad SM, Zeeshan M, Kumar D. Toxicity of endosulfan on growth, photosynthesis,

and nitrogenase activity in two species of Nostoc (Nostoc muscorum and Nostoc calci‐

cola). Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 2011;93:513-525.

[170] Pray CE, Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China-the benefits con‐

tinue. The Plant Journal 2002;31:423-430.

[171] Price DRG, Gatehouse JA. RNAi-mediated crop protection against insects. Trends in

Biotechnology 2008;26:393-400.

[172] Reader SM, Miller TE. The introduction into bread wheat of a major gene for resist‐

ance to powdery mildew from wild emmer wheat. Euphytica 1991;53:57-60.

[173] Reinecke SA, Reinecke AJ. The impact of organophosphate pesticides in orchards on

earthworms in the Western Cape, South Africa. Ecotoxicity and Environmental Safe‐

ty 2007;66:244-251.

[174] Relyea RA, Diecks N. An unforeseen chain of events: lethal effects of pesticides on

frogs at sublethal concentrations. Ecological Applications 2008;18:1728-1742.

[175] Relyea RA, Hoverman JT. Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic

communities. Oikos 2008;117:1647-1658.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

224

[176] Relyea RA. New effects of Roundup on amphibians: predators reduce herbicide mor‐

tality; herbicides induce antipredator morphology. Ecological Applications

2012;22:634-647.

[177] Relyea RA. Predator cues and pesticides: a double dose of danger for amphibians.

Ecological Applications 2003;13:1515-1521.

[178] Relyea RA. The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amhibians. Eco‐

logical Applications 2005(a);15:1118-1124.

[179] Relyea RA. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and produc‐

tivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 2005(b);15:618-627.

[180] Richter AR, Fuxa JR. Timing, formulations and persistence of a nuclear polyhedrosis

virus and microsporidium for control of the velvetbean caterpillar (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae) in soybeans. Journal of Economic Entomology 1984;77:1299-1306.

[181] Richter ED. Acute human pesticide poisonings. Encyclopedia of Pest Management

2002;3-6.

[182] Romero E, Fernández-Bayo J, Díaz JMC, Nogale, R. Enzyme activities and diuron

persistence in soil amended with vermicompost derived from spent grape marc and

treated with urea. Applied Soil Ecology 2010;44:198-204.

[183] Rosell G, Quero C, Coll J, Guerrero A. Biorational insecticides in pest management.

Journal of Pesticide Science 2008;33:103-121.

[184] Rueda-Ayala V, Rasmussen J, Gerhards R. Mechanical weed control. In: Precision

crop protection-the challenge and use of heterogeneity. Springer Netherlands;2010.

p279-294.

[185] Singh G, Chahil GS, Jyot G, Battu RS, Singh B. Degradation dynamics of emamectin

benzoate on cabbage under subtropical conditions of Punjab, India. Bulletin of Envi‐

ronmental Contamination and Toxicology 2013. DOI 10.1007/s00128-013-1013-8

[186] Sannino F, Gianfreda L. Pesticide influence on soil enzymatic activities. Chemo‐

sphere 2001;45:417-425.

[187] Santovito A, Cervella P, Delpero M. Chromosomal aberrations in cultured human

lymphocytes treated with the fungicide, Thiram. Drug and Chemical Toxicology

2012;35:347-351.

[188] Saravi SSS, Shokrzadeh M. Role of pesticides in human life in the modern age: a re‐

view. In: Stoytcheva M (ed.) Pesticides in the modern world-risks and benefits. In‐

Tech;2011. p4-11.

[189] Satyavani G, Gopi RA, Ayyappan S, Balakrishnamurthy P, Reddy PN. Toxicity effect

of expired pesticides to freshwater fish, Labeo rohita. The Journal of Agriculture and

Environment 2011;12:1-9.

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

225

[190] Scharf ME, Meinke LM, Wright RJ, Chandler LD, Siegfried BD. Metabolism of carbar‐

yl by insecticide-resistant and susceptible western corn rootworm populations (Co‐

leoptera: Chrysomelidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 1999;63:85-96.

[191] Scholz NL, Fleishman E, Brown L, Werner I, Johnson ML, Brooks ML, Michaelmore

CL, Schlenk D. A Perspective on modern pesticides, pelagic fish declines, and un‐

known ecological resilience in highly managed ecosystems. BioScience

2012;62:428-434.

[192] Schreck E, Geret F, Gontier L, Treihou M. Neurotoxic effect and metabolic responses

induced by a mixture of six pesticides on the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa noc‐

tuma. Chemosphere 2008;71:1832-1839.

[193] Sebiomo A, Ogundero VW, Bankole SA. Effect of four herbicides on microbial popu‐

lation, soil organic matter and dehydrogenase activity. African Journal of Biotechnol‐

ogy 2011;10:770-778.

[194] Shapiro-Ilan DI, Cottrell TE, Jackson MA, Wood BW. Control of key pecan insect

pests using biorational pesticides. Journal of Economic Entomology 2013;106:257-266.

[195] Sharma HC, Ortiz R. Host plant resistance to insects: an eco-friendly approach for

pest management and environment conservation. Journal of Environmental Biology

2002;23:111-135.

[196] Sharon E, Chet I, Spiegel Y. Trichoderma as a biological control agent. In: Biological

control of plant-parasitic nematodes. Springer Netherlands;2011. p183-201.

[197] Shepard M, Carner GR, Turnipseed TG. Colonization and resurgence of insects pests

of soybean in response to insecticides and field isolation. Environmental Entomology

1977;6:501-506.

[198] Shim YK, Mlynarek SP, van Wijngaarden, E. Parental exposure to pesticides and

childhood brain cancer: US Atlantic coast childhood brain cancer study. Environ‐

mental Health Perspectives 2009;117:1002-1006.

[199] Singh B, Mandal K. Environmental impact of pesticides belonging to newer chemis‐

try. In: Dhawan AK, Singh B, Brar-Bhullar M, Arora R (eds.). Integrated pest man‐

agement. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India;2013. p152-190.

[200] Singh DK, Kumar S. Nitrate reductase, arginine deaminase, urease and dehydrogen‐

ase activities in natural soil (ridges with forest) and in cotton soil after acetamiprid

treatments. Chemosphere 2008;71:412-418.

[201] Sofo A, Scopa A, Dumontet S, Mazzatura A, Pasquale V. Toxic effects of four sulpho‐

nylureas herbicides on soil microbial biomass. Journal of Environmental Science and

Health, Part B 2012;47:653-659.

[202] Solaimalai A, Ramesh RT, Baskar M. Pesticides and environment. In: Environmental

contamination and bioreclamation; 2004. p345-382.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

226

[203] Soltani H, Agricultural H. Efficacy of spinosad against potato Colorado beetle Lepti‐

notarsa. Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research, Hamedan, Iran;

2011.

[204] Son HK, Kim SA, Kang JH, Chang YS, Park SK, Lee SK, Jacobs Jr. DR, Lee DH.

Strong associations between low-dose organochlorine pesticides and type 2 diabetes

in Korea. Environment International 2010;36:410-414.

[205] Song C, Kanthasamy A, Anantharam V, Sun F, Kanthasamy AG. Environmental neu‐

rotoxic pesticide increases histone acetylation to promote apoptosis in dopaminergic

neuronal cells: relevance to epigenetic mechanisms of neurodegeneration. Molecular

Pharmacology 2010;77:621–632.

[206] Souza RC, Cantão ME, Vasconcelos ATR, Nogueira MA, Hungria M. Soil metage‐

nomics reveals differences under conventional and no-tillage with crop rotation or

succession. Applied Soil Ecology 2013;72:49-61.

[207] Srinivasulu M, Mohiddin GJ, Madakka M, Rangaswamy V. Effect of pesticides on the

population of Azospirillum sp. and on ammonification rate in two soils planted to

groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.).Tropical Ecology 2012a;53:93-104.

[208] Srinivasulu M, Mohiddin GJ, Subramanyam K, Rangaswamy V. Effect of insecticides

alone and in combination with fungicides on nitrification and phosphatase activity in

two groundnut (Arachis hypogeae L.) soils. Environmental Geochemistry and Health

2012b;34:365-374.

[209] Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, Waller

RW. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science

2004;306:1783-1786.

[210] Sukul P. Enzymes activities and microbial biomass in soil as influenced by metalaxyl

residues. Soil Biology Biochemistry 2006;38:320-326.

[211] Sultana V, Ehteshamul-Haque S, Ara J, Athar M. Effect of brown seaweeds and pesti‐

cides on root rotting fungi and root-knot nematode infecting tomato roots. Journal of

Applied Botany and Food Quality 2012;83:50-53.

[212] Symondson WOC, Hemingway J. Biochemical and molecular techniques. In: Dent

DR, Walton MP (eds.) Methods in ecological and agricultural entomology. CAB In‐

ternational, Wallingford, UK;1997. p293-350.

[213] Tabashnik BE, Van Rensburg JBJ, Carrière Y. Field-evolved insect resistance to Bt

crops: definition, theory, and data. Journal of Economic Entomology

2009;102:2011-2025.

[214] Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, Hoppin JA, Goldman SM, Korell M, Marras C,

Bhudhikanok GS, Kasten M, Chade AR, Comyns K, Richards MB, Meng C, Priestley

B, Fernandez HH, Cambi F, Umbach DM, Blair A, Sandler DP, Langston JW. Rote‐

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

227

none, paraquat, and Parkinson's disease. Environmental Health Perspectives

2011;119:866-872.

[215] Tavela ADO, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Silva AR, Carvalho RO, Araujo JM, Carvalho G.

Biological control of cyathostomin (Nematoda: Cyathostominae) with nematopha‐

gous fungus, Monacrosporium thaumasium in tropical southeastern Brazil. Veterinary

Parasitology 2011;175:92-96.

[216] Tien CJ, Chen CS. Assessing the toxicity of organophosphorous pesticides to indige‐

nous algae with implication for their ecotoxicological impact to aquatic ecosystems.

Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 2012;47:901-912.

[217] Tierney KB, Baldwin DH, Hara TJ, Ross PS, Scholz NL, Kennedy CJ. Olfactory toxici‐

ty in fishes. Aquatic Toxicology 2010;96:2-26.

[218] Trajkovska S, Mbaye M, Seye MG, Aaron JJ, Chevreuil M, Blanchoud H. Toxicologi‐

cal study of pesticides in air and precipitations of Paris by means of a biolumines‐

cence method. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2009;394:1099-1106.

[219] Trevisan M, Montepiani C, Ragozza L, Bartoletti C, Loannilli E, Del Re AAM. Pesti‐

cides in rainfall and air in Italy. Environmental Pollution 1993;80:31-39.

[220] Tu CM. Effects of some pesticides on enzyme activities in an organic soil. Bulletin of

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 1981;27:109-114.

[221] Van Leeuwen T, Vontas J, Tsagkarakou A, Dermauw W, Tirry L. Acaricide resistance

mechanisms in the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae and other important

Acari: A review. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2010;40:563-572.

[222] Vasileiadis VP, Sattin M, Otto S, Veres A, Palinkas Z, Ban R, Pons X, Kudsk P, Weide

van der R, Czembor E, Moonen AC, Kiss J. Crop protection in European maize-based

cropping systems: Current practices and recommendations for innovative Integrated

Pest Management. Agricultural Systems 2011;104:533-540.

[223] Vermeer K, Risebrough RW, Spaans AL, Reynolds LM. Pesticide effects on fishes and

birds in rice fields of Surinam, South America. Environmental Pollution

1970;7:217-236.

[224] Vickerman GP. Farm scale evaluation of the long-term effects of different pesticide

regimes on the arthropod fauna of winter wheat. In: Greeves MP, Grieg-Smith PW,

Smith BD (eds.) Field methods for the environmental study of the effects of pesti‐

cides. BCPC Monograph No. 40 British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, UK;1988.

p127-135.

[225] Wang LP, Shen J, Ge LQ, Wu JC, Yang GQ, Jahn GC. Insecticide-induced increase in

the protein content of male accessory glands and its effect on the fecundity of females

in the brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stål (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Crop

Protection 2010;29:1280-1285.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects

228

[226] Wang MC, Gong M, Zang HB, Hua XM, Yao J, Pang YJ, Yang YH. Effect of methami‐

dophos and urea application on microbial communities in soils as determined by mi‐

crobial biomass and community level physiological profiles. Journal of

Environmental Science and Health Part B 2006;41:399-413.

[227] Ware GW. Effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms. Residue Reviews

1980;76:173-201.

[228] Weber JB, Wilkerson GG, Reinhardt CF. Calculating pesticide sorption coefficients (K

sub(d)) using selected soil properties. Chemosphere 2004;55:157-166.

[229] Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces

bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 2012;336:351-352.

[230] Williams T. Silent scourge. Audubon 1997;99:28-35.

[231] Winchester PD, Huskins J, Ying J. Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in

the United States. Acta Paediatrica 2009;98:664-669. DOI:0.1111/j.

1651-2227.2008.01207.x

[232] Wu JY, Smart MD, Anelli CM, Sheppard WS. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) reared in

brood combs containing high levels of pesticide residues exhibit increased suscepti‐

bility to Nosema (Microsporidia). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 2012;109:326-329.

[233] Wu KM, Lu YH, Feng HQ, Jiang YY, Zhao JZ. Suppression of cotton bollworm in

multiple crops in China in areas with Bt toxin–containing cotton. Science

2008;321:1676-1678.

[234] Xavier R, Rekha K, Bairy KL. Health perspective of pesticide exposure and dietary

management. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition 2004;10:39-51.

[235] Xie H, Gao F, Tan W, Wang SG. A short-term study on the interaction of bacteria,

fungi and endosulfan in soil microcosm. Science of the Total Environment

2011;412:375-379.

[236] Xu X, Dailey AB, Talbott EO, Ilacqua VA, Kearney G, Asal NR. Associations of serum

concentrations of organochlorine pesticides with breast cancer and prostate cancer in

US adults. Environmental Health Perspectives 2010;118:60-66.

[237] Xuan TD, Shinkichi T, Khanh TD, Chung IM. Biological control of weeds and plant

pathogens in paddy rice by exploiting plant allelopathy: an overview. Crop Protec‐

tion 2005;24:197-206.

[238] Yadav BC, Veluthambi K, Subramaniam K. Host-generated double stranded RNA in‐

duces RNAi in plant-parasitic nematodes and protects the host from infection. Mo‐

lecular and Biochemical Parasitology. 2006;148:219-222.

[239] Yasmin S, D’Souza D. Effects of pesticides on the growth and development of earth‐

worm: a review. Applied and Environmental Soil Sciences 2010;1-9. (Article ID

678360).

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57399

229

[240] Zhang LW, Liu YJ, Yao J, Wang B, Huang B, Li ZZ, Sun JH. Evaluation of Beauveria

bassiana (Hyphomycetes) isolates as potential agents for control of Dendroctonus va‐

lens. Insect Science 2011;18:209-216.

[241] Zhou X, Scharf ME, Parimi S, Meinke LJ, Wright RJ, Chandler LD, Siegfried BD. Di‐

agnostic assays based on esterase-mediated resistance mechanisms in western corn

rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology

2002;95:1261-1265.

Pesticides - Toxic Aspects230

SPATIAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY AND ASSOCIATED HEALTH RISKS FROM AGROCHEMICAL POLLUTION AMONG RURAL DWELLERS IN OGUN STATE, NIGERIA

Article

Full-text available

May 2025

Variations in Sex Pheromone of the Australian Population of Fall Armyworm: Influence of Age and Mating Status

Article

Full-text available

May 2025
J CHEM ECOL

The rapid establishment of Fall Armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda in Australia necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies. Pheromones offer a promising strategy for mitigating FAW damage through monitoring, mass trapping, and mating disruption. Understanding the pheromone composition of local FAW populations, as well as the variation in pheromone composition and production influenced by the mating status and age of FAW females, provides valuable insights into the factors contributing to pheromone production variability. This study investigated chemical composition of pheromone compounds of FAW population in Australia, temporal pattern of release, and the effect of mating status and age of FAW female on compounds release and production. Pheromone glands were collected by solvent extraction, whereas headspace volatiles were collected by solid phase microextraction (SPME) method. The sample contained four compounds (Z)-7-dodecenyl acetate (Z7C12Ac), (Z)-9-dodecenyl acetate (Z9C12Ac), (Z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate (Z9C14Ac) and (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate (Z11C16Ac), with Z9C14Ac present in a significantly higher amount. The maximum quantity of compounds from headspace volatiles was released between 4 to 6 h into the scotophase, while the compounds obtained from gland extraction varied across different phases of the scotophase. Younger FAW female released and produced higher amounts of compounds compared to the older individuals. Mated females have significantly higher compounds titre in their pheromone glands compared to the virgins, despite the latter releasing more volatile compounds. These findings highlight the impact of physiological factors on FAW pheromone compounds, offering valuable insights for developing sustainable strategies to manage FAW population in Australia. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10886-025-01607-0.

Relationship Between the Nutritional and Physiological Responses of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) and Phytochemical Metabolites in Various Sesame Cultivars

Article

May 2025
J APPL ENTOMOL

The cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), is one of the significant economic pests of agricultural crops. In the current study, the nutritional indices and digestive enzymatic activities of H. armigera were assessed on 10 sesame cultivars (Barekat, Mohajer, Shevin, Chamran, Jiroft, Behbahan, Sistan, Dashtestan, Dezful and Hamidieh). Furthermore, specific phytochemical metabolites of sesame cultivars (protein, starch, lipid, phenol, flavonoid and anthocyanin) were evaluated to investigate their relationships with the nutritional and physiological responses of the pest. The results revealed that the efficiency of conversion of ingested food (ECI), efficiency of conversion of digested food (ECD) and relative growth rate (RGR) values of H. armigera larvae were highest on Mohajer and Barekat. However, the related lowest amounts were obtained on Chamran, Jiroft and Dezful. The highest level of amylolytic activity in H. armigera larvae was detected on Jiroft, whereas the lowest activity was found on Mohajer. The larvae fed on Barekat, Mohajer, Dashtestan and Dezful exhibited the maximum proteolytic activities. Quantifying the biochemical differences of the studied sesame cultivars revealed significant variation. Furthermore, significant negative or positive correlations were found between the nutritional indices with enzymatic activities of H. armigera larvae or both of these traits with the chemical components of the tested sesame cultivars. The cluster analysis results revealed that Mohajer and Barekat were the most suitable cultivars, while Chamran, Jiroft and Dezful were nutritionally unsuitable for H. armigera . Our findings suggest that the selective use of certain sesame cultivars as potential sources of antibiosis against H. armigera could be incorporated into integrated pest management (IPM) programmes or used to screen insect inhibitors for developing genetically modified pest‐resistant plants.

Pesticides Degradation Through Microorganisms Immobilized on Agro-Industrial Waste: A Promising Approach for Their Elimination from Aquatic Environments

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Widespread use of pesticides in agriculture causes adverse impacts on non-target organisms and environmental pollution. Efficient and sustainable pesticide removal alternatives must be developed to reduce pesticide environmental impacts. Recently, bioremediation based on immobilized microorganisms has been proposed as an environmentally friendly and cost-effective approach for pesticide degradation in water. Agro-industrial wastes are produced in large quantities in crop fields; their high availability, low cost, and potential for reuse make them ideal support materials for microbial immobilization. This systematic review, conducted through the PRISM 2020 methodology, compiles recent research on using agro-industrial waste to immobilize microorganisms for pesticide degradation. The identified studies highlight corn straw as the most studied agro-industrial waste, while the organophosphorus insecticides, chlorpyrifos, and methyl parathion were the most representative pesticides; in the identified studies, pesticide degradation was conducted mainly by bacteria of the Acinetobacter, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas genera. Overall, microbial immobilization significantly enhanced pesticide degradation, rendering it a viable bioremediation strategy for pesticide-contaminated water.

Investigation of Synthetic Pesticides Use in Isoka District of Muchinga Province in Zambia.

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2025

Purpose: Different countries use different kinds of pesticides which affect the environment and animals in many different ways. The purpose of this study was to analyse pesticide use in Isoka district of Muchinga Province.The objectives were to identify commonly used synthetic pesticides and assess how farmers store them. Methodology: We collected primary data using well-structured questionnaires from 60 vegetable farmers in four agricultural camps. A cross-sectional survey design was employed and data were analysed using frequency and percentages of descriptive statistics. A p -value with test of significance of 0.05 was used. Findings: The commonly used Synthetic pesticides were found to be neonicotinoid 35% .Others that were found to be in use were ; Organophosphates 16%, Organochlorines 3% , Pyrethroids 10% , and Macrocyclic lactones 22% .The Unknown were 7% and carbamates 7% . The farmers kept their pesticides in their homes 53% and in their gardens 47%. Unique contribution to the theory, practice and policy: Neonicotinoid synthetic pesticides were the commonly used pesticides. Farmers kept synthetic pesticides in homes where they lived with children. Because of the effects that pesticides have to the environment, animals and man, this study recommend the need to sensitize farmers on the correct use so that exposure and further contamination of water, soil and vegetables are reduced .Farmers should construct separate store rooms where the said chemicals should be kept.There is need to strengthen institutional collaboration between Zambia environmental management agency and ministry of agriculture.

A REVIEW ON ROLE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN PLANT DISEASE MANAGEMENT

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2025

Nanotechnology, a fascinating field of science, involves modifying atoms and molecules to create objects with extremely small sizes, like nanoparticles ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers. Although they are still in their youth, nanoscience and nanotechnology are swiftly establishing themselves as the most advanced fields, producing the latest discoveries. Diseases and pests are the primary causes of the almost 20-40% annual crop losses. At present, the main method for controlling plant diseases involves the use of toxic pesticides and fungicides, which endanger human health and the environment. To mitigate these issues, the sole required solution is nanotechnology. It utilizes nanoparticles generated through various methods. A range of nanoparticles, such as copper, zinc oxide, and silver nanoparticles, can be utilized for effective management of plant diseases. Biomolecules such as enzymes, proteins, DNA, and plant extracts can be used to create nanoparticles (NPs), paving the way for a new research field in green nanobiotechnology. In the battle against microbes, their efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and eco-friendliness have been shown. Nanomaterials kill bacteria through several mechanisms: generating reactive oxygen species, destroying DNA, oxidizing proteins, depleting ATP, and causing lipid peroxidation. Nanotechnology has a significant impact on the quick identification of plant diseases, pest and disease management using biosensors, soil management, and other domains.

Efficacy of Erwinia amylovora and Xanthomonas campestris pv campestris phages to control fire blight and black rot in vivo

Article

May 2025

Phytopathogens, such as Erwinia amylovora and Xanthomonas campestris , pose significant threats to agriculture, leading to substantial economic losses. Traditional chemical pesticides can harm soil fertility, contaminate water, and impact non-target organisms such as natural predators and pollinators, highlighting the need for sustainable pest control methods. This study explores the use of bacteriophages as biocontrol agents against E. amylovora , which causes fire blight, and X. campestris pv. campestris , responsible for black rot in cruciferous vegetables. Bacteriophages were isolated from urban wastewater and tested for their lytic activity against these pathogens. Three virulent phages were identified: ɸEF1 and ɸEF2 against E. amylovora and ɸXF1 against X. campestris pv. campestris . Genetic analysis confirmed the absence of known lysogeny-related genes, indicating that these phages are ideal candidates for biocontrol applications. In vitro assays demonstrated significant bacterial population reductions. Specifically, ɸEF1 killed 92.1% of the E. amylovora population at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 1 after 3 h, while ɸEF2 reduced the population by 98.1%. When combined in a 1:1 ratio, the two phages reduced E. amylovora populations by 99.7%, and no regrowth of resistant cells was observed, which was not the case when the phages were applied individually. ɸXF1 killed 99.9% of X. campestris pv. campestris populations at an MOI of 1 after 5 h. In vivo experiments using pears and kohlrabi as infection models further validated the phage effectiveness. Treated pears showed reduced fire blight symptoms, and kohlrabi plants exhibited markedly less necrosis from black rot compared to untreated controls. IMPORTANCE Three new virulent phages have been isolated: two targeting Erwinia amylovora and one targeting Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris . All phages were able to rapidly reduce the population of their corresponding phytopathogens and alleviate disease symptoms in in vivo plant models. These findings highlight the potential of these phages as biocontrol agents for managing bacterial plant diseases, offering an alternative to traditional chemical treatments.

Challenges and Opportunities of Nanomaterials in Sustainable Agriculture

Chapter

Full-text available

May 2025

Nanomaterials are becoming a revolutionary tool in agriculture, offering both significant opportunities and notable challenges. The use of nanotechnology in agriculture holds the promise of improved crop yield, improved soil health, and efficient pest management through precise delivery systems and novel agrochemical formulations. Nanomaterials can improve nutrient uptake, enhance plant resilience to stress, and provide innovative solutions for monitoring and managing agricultural inputs. However, the integration of nanomaterials into agriculture also presents several challenges. These include the potential harmful effects of nanomaterials on plants, soil microorganisms, and nontarget organisms, along with concerns regarding long-term environmental impact and sustainability. Regulatory frameworks and safety standards are still evolving, which complicates the widespread adoption of nanomaterials. Additionally, there is a need for interdisciplinary research to understand the mechanisms of nanomaterial interactions in the agricultural ecosystem fully. Addressing these challenges through comprehensive research and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and industry stakeholders will be crucial to harness the full potential of nanomaterials in sustainable agriculture.

Evaluation of α-glucosidases as potential targets for the control of corn weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera, Curculionidae)

Article

Apr 2025
J STORED PROD RES

Warburgia ugandensis Leaf and Bark Extracts: An Alternative to Copper as Fungicide against Downy Mildew in Organic Viticulture?

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021

In organic viticulture, copper-based fungicides are commonly used to suppress Downy Mildew infection, caused by the oomycete Plasmopara viticola. However, the frequent and intensive use of such fungicides leads to accumulation of the heavy metal in soil and nearby waters with adverse effects on the ecosystem. Therefore, alternative, organic fungicides against Downy Mildew are urgently needed to reduce the copper load in vineyards. In this study, the use of Warburgia ugandensis Sprague (Family Canellacea) leaf and bark extracts as potential fungicides against Downy Mildew were evaluated. In vitro (microtiter) and in vivo (leaf discs, seedlings) tests were conducted, as well as field trials to determine the efficacy of the extracts against Downy Mildew. The results revealed an MIC100 of 500 µg/mL for the leaf extract and 5 µg/mL for the bark extract. Furthermore, experiments with leaf discs and seedlings demonstrated a strong protective effect of the extracts for up to 48 h under (semi-) controlled conditions. However, in field trials the efficacy of the extracts distinctly declined, regardless of the extracts’ origin and concentration.

Toxicity effect of expired pesticides to freshwater fish, Labeo rohita

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2011
J FOOD AGRIC ENVIRON

We selected 15 widely used pesticide formulations to investigate possible chemical, biological and toxicological effects of expired pesticides that may enter into our ecosystem. They comprised of organophosphate and pyrethroid based insecticides, azole based fungicides, acetamide, propionate, acetic acid based herbicides, and fungicides mixtures containing two actives of azole and dithiocarbamates. The selected compounds were tested for acute toxicity to fish, Labeo rohita using Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guideline no. 203 under static condition. Five to six concentrations (ranges from 0.005 – 80 mg/L) of both expired and unexpired pesticide formulations were tested along with controls under similar conditions at Department of Ecotoxicology, International Institute of Biotechnology and Toxicology. The results of the LC 50 (Lethal Concentration)demonstrated significantly lower LC 50 values for the expired pesticides as compared to the corresponding unexpired counter part. From this data, it is clear that expired pesticide formulations must be disposed carefully and, care should be taken to avoid their discharge to water bodies and thus prevent loss to fish.

Introduction to Soil Solarization: ENY 062/IN856, 6/2010

Article

Jul 2010

ENY062, a 6-page illustrated fact sheet by Robert McSorley and Harsimran K. Gill, describes this practice of covering soil surface with plastic to harness the sun’s heat to manage soil weeds, nematodes, diseases, and insects in soil. The authors answer frequently asked questions and outline steps for conducting soil solarization. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Entomology and Nematology, June 2010. ENY 062/IN856: Introduction to Soil Solarization (ufl.edu)

Effect of fungicides on fusarium grain rot endoenzyme production in maize

Article

Apr 2000

Effects of organophosphate pesticide abate on the ovary of the cat fish, Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch.)

Article

Mar 2013

Mamata Kumari

The effects of the pesticide Abate on the ovary of the cat fish Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch.) was studied by observing the vitellogenesis of the fish. The LC50 of Abate (0.64 ppm) after 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours of exposure to the fish was determined to be 14.3, 10.0, 6.61 and 5.13 ppm, respectively. The glycogen contents in the normal fish were lowest (6.0 mg/g) and highest (21.96 mg/g) in December and August, respectively; the protein contents were lowest (102.65 mg/g) in August and highest (424.17 mg/g) in December; whereas, the cholesterol was the lowest (9.32 mg/g) in November and highest (15.76 mg/g) in August. In the Abate treated fish, the lowest and highest contents of biochemicals were: 3.58 and 17.10 mg/g of glycogen in December and August, respectively; 80.44 and 378.34 mg/g of protein in December and August, respectively; and 7.15 and 12.92 mg/g of cholesterol in December and August respectively. The results show that the pesticide Abate has the potentiality to alter the vitellogenesis of the fish. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v40i2.14314 Bangladesh J. Zool. 40 (2): 207-212, 2012

Breeding rice for resistance to bacterial blight

Chapter

Jan 1989

Effect of different inorganic/synthetic mulches on weed suppression during soil solarization

Article

Jan 2011

Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctinos worldwide

Article

Jan 2004

The Poisoning of Non-target Animals

Chapter

Dec 1995

K. Hunter

Precision Crop Protection - the Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity

Book

Jan 2010

Precision farming is an agricultural management system using global navigation satellite systems, geographic information systems, remote sensing, and data management systems for optimizing the use of nutrients, water, seed, pesticides and energy in heterogeneous field situations. This book, generated by scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines, provides extensive information on the state-of-the-art of research on precision crop protection and recent developments in site-specific application technologies for the management of weeds, arthropod pests, pathogens and nematodes. It gives the reader an up-to-date and in-depth review of both basic and applied research developments. The chapters discuss I) biology and epidemiology of pests, II) new sensor technologies, III) applications of multi-scale sensor systems, IV) sensor detection of pests in growing crops, V) spatial and non-spatial data management, VI) impact of pest heterogeneity and VII) precise mechanical and chemical pest control. Examples for the use of technologies are given for the management of pests which enable growers to vary application timing and dosage, and to optimize pesticide mixtures or intensity of mechanical weeding according to the spatial and temporal variability of pests.

Development of transgenic Indica rice plants containing potato proteinase inhibitor 2 (Pin2) gene with improved defense against yellow stem borer

Article

Jan 2006

Agrobacterium- mediated transformation of two Basmati rice varieties (Pusa Basmati 1 and Taraori Basmati) and a Japonica rice variety TNG67 (Tainung 67) was performed using LBA4404 (pSB1+pRKJ1 and pSB1+pRKJ2) strains harboring potato proteinase inhibitor 2 gene (Pin2) driven by Pin2 wound inducible promoter. β glucuronidase gene with an intron (pRKJ2) was used for transient Gus (uidA) expression and production of stable uidA expressing calli. Transformation frequency was higher in immature embryo derived calli as compared to the mature seed scutellar- derived calli in all the three rice varieties. The presence and copy number of the transgene was confirmed by a simple, rapid and low-cost polymerase chain reaction method. Clear distinctions were made between single and multiple copies of the transgene by comparing the band densities. Out of 108 independent regenerated T0 plants, ninety six confirmed the presence of transgene. More than 90% of the plants were fertile and roots of most of the plants harboring plasmid pSB1+pRKJ2 were found to be Gus positive (88.5%). Cut-leaf, cut-stem and whole plant bioassay of ten T2 transgenic rice lines of three cultivars during vegetative and earhead stage of plants under greenhouse and laboratory conditions showed significantly higher larval mortality and lower damaged leaf area as compared to the control (non-transgenic) plants indicating increased resistance against yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas walker).

Pesticides: Environmental Impacts and Management Strategies

Figures

Recommended publications

Pesticides in the Environment: Impacts and its Biodegradation as a Strategy for Residues Treatment

Crop Management Strategy Redesign Enables a Reduction in Pesticide Use: A Diachronic Approach Based...

Use, research and development of pesticides in relation to sustainable agriculture in Japan

Strategies for Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Pesticides in the Environment