Environmental Management

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 1155–1170 | Cite as

Do Riparian Buffers Protect Stream Invertebrate Communities in South American Atlantic Forest Agricultural Areas?

  • L. Hunt
  • N. Marrochi
  • C. Bonetto
  • M. Liess
  • D. F. Buss
  • C. Vieira da Silva
  • M.-C. Chiu
  • V. H. Resh


We investigated the influence and relative importance of insecticides and other agricultural stressors in determining variability in invertebrate communities in small streams in intensive soy-production regions of Brazil and Paraguay. In Paraguay we sampled 17 sites on tributaries of the Pirapó River in the state of Itapúa and in Brazil we sampled 18 sites on tributaries of the San Francisco River in the state of Paraná. The riparian buffer zones generally contained native Atlantic forest remnants and/or introduced tree species at various stages of growth. In Brazil the stream buffer width was negatively correlated with sediment insecticide concentrations and buffer width was found to have moderate importance in mitigating effects on some sensitive taxa such as mayflies. However, in both regions insecticides had low relative importance in explaining variability in invertebrate communities, while various habitat parameters were more important. In Brazil, the percent coverage of soft depositional sediment in streams was the most important agriculture-related explanatory variable, and the overall stream-habitat score was the most important variable in Paraguay streams. Paraguay and Brazil both have laws requiring forested riparian buffers. The ample forested riparian buffer zones typical of streams in these regions are likely to have mitigated the effects of pesticides on stream invertebrate communities. This study provides evidence that riparian buffer regulations in the Atlantic Forest region are protecting stream ecosystems from pesticides and other agricultural stressors. Further studies are needed to determine the minimum buffer widths necessary to achieve optimal protection.


Soy production Pesticides Agriculture Multiple stressors Stream macroinvertebrates 



This study was supported by grants from the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (Argentina—PICT 2010-0446) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico/Programa de Excelência em Pesquisa (Brazil—Grant No. 400107/2011-2). L. Hunt was supported primarily by fellowships from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Fulbright U.S Student Program. We thank the following organizations for help with logistics and other support: Pro Cosara, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural Paraguay, Guyra Paraguay, World Wildlife Fund Paraguay, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, and Instituto Ambiental do Paraná. A. Scalise, M. Ferronato, G. Godoy, D. Bazan, and S. Pujarra provided invaluable support with field, laboratory and GIS work. We are grateful to J. Kochalka and B. Shepard for providing their expertize with taxonomic identifications.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

267_2017_938_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (154 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Alvez JP, Schmitt Filho AL, Farley J, Alarcon G, Fantini AC (2012) The potential for agroecosystems to restore ecological corridors and sustain farmer livelihoods: evidence from Brazil. Ecol Restor 30(4):288–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguiar TR, Bortolozo FR, Hansel FA, Rasera K, Ferreira MT (2015) Riparian buffer zones as pesticide filters of no-till crops. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:10618–10626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J (1996) Subsampling of benthic samples: A defense of the fixed-count method. J North Am Benthol Soc 15:386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers. USEPA Washington.Google Scholar
  5. Barton K (2015) Package “MuMIn.” Version 1, 18.Google Scholar
  6. Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schafer RB, Liess M (2013) Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11039–11043. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bereswill R, Streloke M, Schulz R (2014) Risk mitigation measures for diffuse pesticide entry into aquatic ecosystems: proposal of a guide to identify appropriate measures on a catchment scale. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 10(2):286–298Google Scholar
  8. Botta GF, Tolon-Becerra A, Lastra-Bravo X, Tourn MC (2011) A Research of the Environmental and Social Effects of the Adoption of Biotechnological Practices for Soybean Cultivation in Argentina. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2:359–369Google Scholar
  9. Bunzel K, Kattwinkel M, Liess M (2013) Effects of organic pollutants from wastewater treatment plants on aquatic invertebrate communities. Water Res 47:597–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunzel K, Liess M, Kattwinkel M (2014) Landscape parameters driving aquatic pesticide exposure and effects. Environ Pollut 186:90–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter JL, Resh VH (2013) Analytical approaches used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring programs of state agencies in the United States. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1129. US Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Castanheira EG, Freire F (2013) Greenhouse gas assessment of soybean production: implications of land use change and different cultivation systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 54:49–60Google Scholar
  13. Chang F-H, Lawrence JE, Rios-Touma B, Resh VH (2014) Tolerance values of benthic macroinvertebrates for stream biomonitoring: assessment of assumptions underlying scoring systems worldwide. Environ Monit Assess 186:2135–2149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke K, Ainsworth M (1993) A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental variables. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 92:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Marzio WD, Saenz ME, Alberdi JL, Fortunado N, Cappello V, Montivero C, Ambrini G (2010) Environmental impact of insecticides applied on biotech soybean crops in relation to the distance from aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(9):1907–1917Google Scholar
  16. Dominguez E, Fernandez HR (2009) Macroinvertebrados bentónicos. Sistemática y biología. Fundación Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  17. García-López GA, Arizpe N (2010) Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina. Ecological Economics, 70(2):196–206Google Scholar
  18. Grueber CE, Nakagawa S, Laws RJ, Jamieson IG (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions: Multimodel inference. J Evol Biol 24:699–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gücker B, Boëchat IG, Giani A (2009) Impacts of agricultural land use on ecosystem structure and whole-stream metabolism of tropical Cerrado streams. Freshw Biol 54:2069–2085. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt L, Bonetto C, Resh VH, Buss DF, Fanelli S, Marrochi N, Lydy MJ (2016) Insecticide concentrations in stream sediments of soy production regions of South America. Sci Total Environ 547:114–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunt L, Bonetto C, Marrochi N, Scalise A, Fanelli S, Liess M, Lydy MJ, Chiu M-C, Resh VH (2017) Species at Risk (SPEAR) index indicates effects of insecticides on stream invertebrate communities in soy production regions of the Argentine Pampas. Sci Total Environ 580:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landsc Ecol 16:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lathuilliere MJ, Johnson MS, Galford GL, Couto EG (2014) Environmental footprints show China and Europe’s evolving resource appropriation for soybean production in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Environmental Research Letters 9(7):074001Google Scholar
  24. Liess M, Ohe PCVD (2005) Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:954–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthaei CD, Piggott JJ, Townsend CR (2010) Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: interactions among sediment addition, nutrient enrichment and water abstraction: Sediment, nutrients & water abstraction. J Appl Ecol 47:639–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 4th edn. Kendall Hunt Publishing. Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Mugni H, Paracampo A, Marrochi N, Bonetto C (2013) Acute toxicity of cypermethrin to the non target organism Hyalella curvispina. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 35:88–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mugni H, Ronco A, Bonetto C (2011) Insecticide toxicity to Hyalella curvispina in runoff and stream water within a soybean farm (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:350–354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H et al. (2013) Package “vegan.” Community Ecol. Package Version 2.Google Scholar
  30. Orlinskiy P, Münze R, Beketov M, Gunold R, Paschke A, Knillmann S, Liess M (2015) Forested headwaters mitigate pesticide effects on macroinvertebrate communities in streams: Mechanisms and quantification. Sci Total Environ 524-525:115–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rasmussen JJ, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Larsen SE, Kronvang B (2011a) Local physical habitat quality cloud the effect of predicted pesticide runoff from agricultural land in Danish streams. J Environ Monit 13:943. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rasmussen JJ, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Wiberg-Larsen P, McKnight US, Kronvang B (2011b) Buffer strip width and agricultural pesticide contamination in Danish lowland streams: Implications for stream and riparian management. Ecol Eng 37:1990–1997. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasmussen JJ, Reiler EM, Carazo E, Matarrita J, Muñoz A, Cedergreen N (2016) Influence of rice field agrochemicals on the ecological status of a tropical stream. Sci Total Environ 542:12–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  35. Reichenberger S, Bach M, Skitsschak A, Frede H (2007) Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness; a review. Science of the Total Environment 384(1–3):1–35Google Scholar
  36. Richards C, HOST GE, ARTHUR JW (1993) Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment. Freshw Biol 29:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rios SL, Bailey RC (2006) Relationship between Riparian Vegetation and Stream Benthic Communities at Three Spatial Scales. Hydrobiologia 553:153–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rubach MN, Baird DJ, Van den Brink PJ (2010) A new method for ranking mode-specific sensitivity of freshwater arthropods to insecticides and its relationship to biological traits. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:476–487. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schäfer RB, Caquet T, Siimes K, Mueller R, Lagadic L, Liess M (2007) Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions in Europe. Sci Total Environ 382:272–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schäfer RB, Pettigrove V, Rose G, Allinson G, Wightwick A, von der Ohe PC, Shimeta J, Kühne R, Kefford BJ (2011) Effects of pesticides monitored with three sampling methods in 24 sites on macroinvertebrates and microorganisms. Environ Sci Technol 45:1665–1672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schäfer RB, von der Ohe PC, Rasmussen J, Kefford BJ, Beketov MA, Schulz R, Liess M (2012) Thresholds for the effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities and leaf breakdown in stream ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 46:5134–5142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stehle S, Schulz R (2015) Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:5750–5755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stone ML, Whiles MR, Webber JA, Williard KWJ, Reeve JD (2005) Macroinvertebrate communities in agriculturally impacted Southern Illinois Streams. J Environ Qual 34:907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1996) Soil survey laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 3.0. JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  45. Weston DP, Lydy MJ (2010) Urban and agricultural sources of pyrethroid insecticides to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California. Environmental Science and Technology 44(5):1833–1840Google Scholar
  46. Whiles MR, Brock BL, Franzen AC, Dinsmore II SC (2000) Stream invertebrate communities, water quality, and land-use patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Environ Manage 26:563–576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wood PJ, Armitage PD (1997) Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manage 21:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. You J, Pehkonen S, Weston DP, Lydy MJ (2008) Chemical availability and sediment toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides to Hyalella azteca: Application to field sediment with unexpectedly low toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:2124–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. You J, Schuler LJ, Lydy MJ (2004) Acute toxicity of sediment-sorbed endrin, methoxychlor, and endosulfan to Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 73.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Hunt
    • 1
  • N. Marrochi
    • 2
  • C. Bonetto
    • 2
  • M. Liess
    • 3
  • D. F. Buss
    • 4
  • C. Vieira da Silva
    • 5
  • M.-C. Chiu
    • 1
  • V. H. Resh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.ILPLA (CONICET-CCT La Plata)—UNLP Instituto de Limnología “Dr. Raúl. A. Ringuelet”Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Department System-EcotoxicologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Laboratório de Avaliação e Promoção da Saúde Ambiental, IOC, FIOCRUZRio de JaneiroBrazil
  5. 5.Departamento de ZoologiaInstituto de Biociências,Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita FilhoBotucatuBrazil

Personalised recommendations