Do Riparian Buffers Protect Stream Invertebrate Communities in South American Atlantic Forest Agricultural Areas?
- 297 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSoy 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.
- Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers. USEPA Washington.Google Scholar
- Barton K (2015) Package “MuMIn.” Version 1, 18.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Dominguez E, Fernandez HR (2009) Macroinvertebrados bentónicos. Sistemática y biología. Fundación Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
- García-López GA, Arizpe N (2010) Participatory processes in the soy conflicts in Paraguay and Argentina. Ecological Economics, 70(2):196–206Google Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01809.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103227q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1996) Soil survey laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 3.0. JanuaryGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-004-0451-8