Spatio-temporal analysis of water quality for pesticides and other agricultural pollutants in Deduru Oya river basin of Sri Lanka

Fungicides are indispensable to global food security and their use is forecasted to intensify. Fungicides can reach aquatic ecosystems and occur in surface water bodies in agricultural catchments throughout the entire growing season due to their frequent, prophylactic application. However, in comparison to herbicides and insecticides, the exposure to and effects of fungicides have received less attention. We provide an overview of the risk of fungicides to aquatic ecosystems covering fungicide exposure (i.e., environmental fate, exposure modeling, and mitigation measures) as well as direct and indirect effects of fungicides on microorganisms, macrophytes, invertebrates, and vertebrates. We show that fungicides occur widely in aquatic systems, that the accuracy of predicted environmental concentrations is debatable, and that fungicide exposure can be effectively mitigated. We additionally demonstrate that fungicides can be highly toxic to a broad range of organisms and can pose a risk to aquatic biota. Finally, we outline central research gaps that currently challenge our ability to predict fungicide exposure and effects, promising research avenues, and shortcomings of the current environmental risk assessment for fungicides.

Abstract Most insecticides are insect neurotoxins. Evidence is emerging that sublethal doses of these neurotoxins are affecting the learning and memory of both wild and managed bee colonies, exacerbating the negative effects of pesticide exposure and reducing individual foraging efficiency. Variation in methodologies and interpretation of results across studies has precluded the quantitative evaluation of these impacts that is needed to make recommendations for policy change. It is not clear whether robust effects occur under acute exposure regimes (often argued to be more field‐realistic than the chronic regimes upon which many studies are based), for field‐realistic dosages, and for pesticides other than neonicotinoids. Here we use meta‐analysis to examine the impact of pesticides on bee performance in proboscis extension‐based learning assays, the paradigm most commonly used to assess learning and memory in bees. We draw together 104 (learning) and 167 (memory) estimated effect sizes across a diverse range of studies. We detected significant negative effects of pesticides on learning and memory (i) at field realistic dosages, (ii) under both chronic and acute application, and (iii) for both neonicotinoid and non‐neonicotinoid pesticides groups. We also expose key gaps in the literature that include a critical lack of studies on non‐Apis bees, on larval exposure (potentially one of the major exposure routes), and on performance in alternative learning paradigms. Policy implications. Procedures for the registration of new pesticides within EU member states now typically require assessment of risks to pollinators if potential target crops are attractive to bees. However, our results provide robust quantitative evidence for subtle, sublethal effects, the consequences of which are unlikely to be detected within small‐scale prelicensing laboratory or field trials, but can be critical when pesticides are used at a landscape scale. Our findings highlight the need for long‐term postlicensing environmental safety monitoring as a requirement within licensing policy for plant protection products.

Global crop production tripled during the last 50 years, mainly by an increase in yield (production/area). We show that the energy embedded in the main oil-based inputs (machinery, fuel, and fertilizers) increased worldwide at a rate at first larger, but in the last decades slower, than crop production, resulting in a recent overall improved energy-use efficiency (EUE). This was explained by advances in the nitrogen fertilizer industry, irrigation, and other technologies and perhaps some environmental changes. Our results fit the “Jevons paradox”: Efficiency gains, both for EUE and land (yield), did not lead to resource savings. Just as increasing production does not guarantee alleviating hunger, technologies make land (and biodiversity) savings possible, but realizing them depends on bold political decisions. We analyzed crop production, physical inputs, and land use at the country level to assess technological changes behind the threefold increase in global crop production from 1961 to 2014. We translated machinery, fuel, and fertilizer to embedded energy units that, when summed up, provided a measure of agricultural intensification (human subsidy per hectare) for crops in the 58 countries responsible for 95% of global production. Worldwide, there was a 137% increase in input use per hectare, reaching 13 EJ, or 2.6% of the world’s primary energy supply, versus only a 10% increase in land use. Intensification was marked in Asia and Latin America, where input-use levels reached those that North America and Europe had in the earlier years of the period; the increase was more accentuated, irrespective of continent, for the 12 countries with mostly irrigated production. Half of the countries (28/58), mainly developed ones, had an average subsidy >5 GJ/ha/y (with fertilizers accounting for 27% in 1961 and 45% in 2014), with most of them (23/28) using about the same area or less than in 1961 (net land sparing of 31 Mha). Most of the remaining countries (24/30 with inputs <5 GJ/ha/y), mainly developing ones, increased their cropped area (net land extensification of 135 Mha). Overall, energy-use efficiency (crop output/inputs) followed a U-shaped trajectory starting at about 3 and finishing close to 4. The prospects of a more sustainable intensification are discussed, and the inadequacy of the land-sparing model expectation of protecting wilderness via intensified agriculture is highlighted.