Using PUR Data and the PRiME Tool To Assess Pest Management Practices

S.E. Kegley, P. Mineau, W.D. Pronschinske,

M. Guzy, C. Benbrook, P.C. Jepson, K. Benbrook, T.A. Green, L. Presley, J. Kaplan

Improving health and environment by identifying and reducing pesticide risks

in agriculture

www.ipmprime.org

How does PRiME differ from existing indicators?

• Risk (not hazard) based, probabilistic for most indices

• Addresses interspecies toxicity range

• Includes local soil types, rainfall for site-specific score

• Adjusts risk for different application methods and mitigation practices

• Calibrates scores against documented field impacts***

*** Where data permit

Acute indices – calibrated against available field studies • Avian: Probability that a given application will give rise to bird mortality. • Small Mammal: Probability of a population-level effect. • Earthworms: Probability of >35% loss of biomass. • Aquatic Invertebrates: Probability that >10% of taxa will be impacted

significantly (typically 50-90% loss of population). • Algae: Probability that >20% of species will be impacted significantly. • Pollinators: Coming soon Chronic / reproductive indices – Follow risk assessment methodology but not

calibrated against actual field outcomes.

• Avian & fish: Proportion of the breeding season over which reproduction is compromised.

Environmental Risk Indicators Defined

RISK BANDS: < 10% 10 – 50 % > 50 % Negligible Moderate High

** See detailed ‘white paper’ available for each index

• Inhalation: Probability of the 4–12 hour air concentration exceeding the short-term inhalation Reference Exposure Level (REL) for a 1-year-old

• Dermal: Exceedance of the dermal Reference Dose (RfD) for a woman of childbearing age

• Dietary Risk Index (DRI): Exceedance of the chronic oral RfD for a 4-year-old child from food and drinking water

Human Health Risk Indices

RISK BANDS: < 0.1 0.1–0.5 0.5–1.0 Negligible Moderate High

** See detailed ‘white paper’ available for each index

Choose the Site

Upload Application Records

Grower #1

Grower #1

Grower #2

Grower #2

Grower #1

California PUR Cotton Data

Scenario: Textile producer purchases locally-grown cotton from Kern County, California • 10 years of spray records

(2001-2010) • 100 fields per year

analyzed in PRiME • Average of 23 growers

per year, 40 growers total

e.g. 2010

A. Comparing performance of growers

RISK “CREEP”’

Probability of a Bird Kill After One Application

Probability of a Bird Kill by Field After All Applications

Single Application: Probability of a Bird Kill

Season Long: Cumulative Probability of a Bird Kill

Num

ber o

f Fie

lds

Num

ber o

f App

licat

ions

A small fraction of applications present a risk to mammals but a large proportion of the fields use a high risk chemical – paraquat.

A. Comparing performance of growers

Single Application: Probability of a Population Level Effect in Small Mammals

Num

ber o

f App

licat

ions

Num

ber o

f Fie

lds

Probability of a Population Level Effect by Field After All Applications

Probability of a Population Level Effect After One Application

Season Long: Cumulative Probability of a Population Level Effect in Small Mammals

Terrestrial vertebrate risk% of applications considered high risk

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Avian acute

Small mammal acute

Avian chronic/reproduction

B. Time trend analysis Percent of Applications to Cotton Considered

High Risk To Terrestrial Vertebrates

Aquatic risk % of applications potentially high risk

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Invertebrate acute

Fish chronic

Algae acute

?

cyfluthrin endosulfan

B. Time trend analysis

Percent of Applications to Cotton Considered High Risk To Aquatic Organisms

C. Landscape Analysis

Analyzed all agricultural pesticide applications in 2010 to a 36-square mile block in San Joaquin County, CA.

Number of Fields per Section

Average Field Score for Avian Acute

Proportion of High Risk Scores for Avian Acute

25 of 19

Conclusion: Provided you have the pesticide input data, you can use PRiME to identify problem areas, time trends or growers needing assistance. Of course, the tool can be used pro-actively to reduce the environmental footprint of farming activities

Acknowledgments:

IPM Institute of North America, Inc.

.... and the many advisors and reviewers

27 of 19

Inhalation Risk Index

High Inhalation Risk Pesticides Used on Grapes

28 of 19

Inhalation Risk Index

Moderate Inhalation Risk Pesticides

29 of 19

Dermal Risk Index

High Dermal Risk Pesticides Used on Grapes

30 of 19

Dermal Risk Index

High Dermal Risk Pesticides Used on Grapes

31 of 19

Dermal Risk Index

Moderate Dermal Risk Pesticides