Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty

Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty Ranges, S.A. and assessment of risk of off-site movement using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI).

Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana

CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 11/05 July 2005

Copyright and Disclaimer © 2005 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important Disclaimer: CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Cover Photograph: From CSIRO Land and Water Image Gallery: www.clw.csiro.au/ImageGallery/ File: PDC00421_013.jpg Description: Grape vines in the Mt Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Photographer: Willem van Aken © 2005 CSIRO

CSIRO Land and Water Page i

Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty Ranges, S.A. and assessment of risk of off-site movement using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI). Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana CSIRO Land and Water PMB 2 Glen Osmond SA 5064 CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 11/05 July2005

CSIRO Land and Water Page ii

Acknowledgements Sincere thanks to the growers in the 6th Creek sub-catchment who willingly participated in this survey of pesticide use and gave so much of their time to discuss their spray practices. Thanks also to Mr Ian Daynes, Lenswood Rural, who provided highly valuable feedback about data collected and seasonal variability in spraying practices. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) are gratefully acknowledged for funding this project. The screening tool, Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI), has been developed by Dr Rai Kookana (CSIRO Land and Water) and Dr Ray Correll and Ms Ros Miller (CMIS).

CSIRO Land and Water Page iii

Executive Summary The Mt Lofty Ranges are the main catchment area for Adelaide’s drinking water supply and

concerns have been raised about the detection of certain pesticides in creeks that run into

the main reservoirs. Consequently, an inventory of pesticide use was made for the main

landuses in the 6th Creek sub-catchment in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, S.A., namely apples,

lemons, grapes, strawberries and cherries. This data was collected during interviews with 1

to 2 growers for each landuse and cross-checked with the major chemical supplier in the

region. A risk assessment was then made for each landuse using Pesticide Impact Rating

Index (PIRI) to determine the potential for the chemicals to move off-site to surface water and

toxicity impacts based on LC50 values for Rainbow trout and USEPA Health Advisory

Guidelines. Different rates of application and/or frequency of application of chemicals occur

from year to year depending upon environmental conditions. Several scenarios were run

through PIRI for each landuse covering the lowest and highest rates of application and/or

frequency of applications and different soil organic carbon contents and slopes. It should be

noted that PIRI has not yet been validated specifically in the Mt. Lofty Ranges. It is planned

in future work to monitor selected creeks for specific chemicals identified in the initial

assessment to validate PIRI. A summary of the main chemicals of concern in each landuse,

rated by PIRI as having high potential for off-site migration as well as toxicity to fish is given

below:

Risk of surface water contamination

Landuse Main chemicals of concern

Apples Mancozeb, paraquat, diquat, ethefon, thiram, metiram, Cherries Mancozeb, paraquat, diquat, pirimicarb Grapes Mancozeb, paraquat, diquat, Lemons Paraquat, diquat, triclopyr Strawberries Maldison, methomyl, iprodione, dimethoate

CSIRO Land and Water Page iv

Toxicity Risk based on LC50 values for Rainbow Trout (this assessment is restricted by the number of chemicals for which there are LC50 values for Rainbow Trout) Landuse Main chemicals of concern Apples Captan, mancozeb, endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, thiram, abamectin, propargite, ,

azinphos methyl. Cherries Captan, mancozeb Grapes Esfenvalerarate, mancozeb Lemons Strawberries Maldison, endosulfan, abamectin, captan The risk assessment based on USEPA Health Advisory Levels (HAL) does not take into account any removal of chemicals of compounds during water treatment processes. The assessment made in this report provides an indicative risk for untreated drinking water. A summary is given below: Toxicity Risk based on USEPA Health Advisory Levels (HAL) (this assessment is restricted by the limited number of chemicals that have HAL values) Landuse Main chemicals of concern Apples Parathion methyl, diquat, paraquat, simazine, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl Cherries Paraquat, diquat, carbaryl Grapes Paraquat, diquat, simazine, carbaryl Lemons Paraquat, diquat Strawberries Methomyl The intention of this risk assessment is to enhance current pesticide monitoring and management programmes in the Mt. Lofty Ranges. This study will be made available to S.A. Water so their current monitoring programme can be adjusted as needed to include any pesticides that have been identified by PIRI as posing a potential risk but are not currently monitored.

CSIRO Land and Water Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Copyright and Disclaimer i Acknowledgements ii Executive Summary iii 1. BACKGROUND 1 2. MAJOR LANDUSES IN THE SIXTH CREEK SUBCATCHMENT 1 3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PESTICIDE IMPACT RATING INDEX (PIRI) 5 4. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION 5

4.1 PESTICIDE USE DATA 5 4.2 OTHER INPUT PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR PIRI ASSESSMENT 7

5. DATA USED FOR 6TH CREEK SUB-CATCHMENT 10 6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE PIRI ASSESSMENT 12

6.1 VARIABILITY IN PESTICIDE DATA 12 6.2 VARIABILITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. 13 6.3 EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDES FROM ASSESSMENT 13

7. RESULTS OF PIRI ASSESSMENT 16 7.1 APPLES 16 7.2 CHERRIES 21 7.3 GRAPES 25 7.4 LEMONS 28 7.5 STRAWBERRIES 31 7.6 SUMMARY OF PIRI ASSESSMENT ACROSS LANDUSES 34

APPENDIX 1 36 Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI) : 36

APPENDIX 2 42

CSIRO Land and Water Page 1

1. BACKGROUND There has been concern about pesticide transport off-site and potential adverse impacts in

numerous areas in Australia. The Mt Lofty Ranges are the main catchment area for

Adelaide’s drinking water supply and concerns have been raised about the detection of

certain pesticides in creeks that run into the main reservoirs.

As part of an ACIAR-funded project, Minimising the off-site impact of pesticides from

agricultural systems – A Risk Based Approach (project number LWR1/2000/084), an

inventory was made of pesticides used in the major landuses in the 6th Creek sub-catchment

in the Mt Lofty Ranges in 2002 and 2003. The 6th Creek sub-catchment was chosen because

of interest and support of partners in this project. The methodology of data collection for

pesticide use as well as environmental parameters, problems of variability of the data, tables

of pesticide use for the major landuses in the area and results from a PIRI assessment of

potential risk are detailed in this report.

The location of the 6th Creek sub-catchment in the Mt Lofty Ranges and its proximity to

Adelaide are shown in Fig. 1. The sub-catchment is bordered by Kangaroo Creek Reservoir

and Montacute Conservation Park to the north, Mawson Rd and Deviation Rd to the east, the

townships of Carey Gully, Uraidla and Summertown to the south and Montacute and Marble

Hill Rd. to the west.

2. MAJOR LANDUSES IN THE SIXTH CREEK SUBCATCHMENT

The major landuse types in the sub-catchment are shown in Fig. 2. and the percentage area

covered for each landuse is given in Table 1 and Fig. 3. The major landuses are native

vegetation (43%), broadscale grazing (32%), recreation (7%), pomefruit (7%), stonefruit

(3%), exotic vegetation (3%) and vines (2%).

PESTICIDE USE IN 6TH CREEK SUBCATCHMENT, MT LOFTY RANGES


Fig.1 Location of 6th Creek sub-catchment in the Mt Lofty Ranges, South Australia



Fig. 2. Landuse types in the 6th Creek sub-catchment (courtesy of EPA Watershed Protection Office, Stirling, South Australia).

↑ North



Table 1. Landuse types and % of area in 6th Creek sub-catchment in each GIS category. GIS Category in EPA Landuse Assessment

Types of landuses covered in each GIS category1

% area

Main landuse in 6th Creek

Native Vegetation

Revegetation; Remnant Vegetation Commercial Forestry (native species only)

43.02 All types listed

Broadscale Grazing

Sheep; Horses; Beef; Goats 32.17 All types listed

Recreation Protected areas; Conservation parks National parks; Reserves Wetlands; Road/water reserves Parklands

7.27 All types listed

Pomefruit Apples; feijoas; loquats; nashis; pears; pomegranates; quinces

6.82 Apples; pears

Stonefruit Apricots; cherries; nectarines; peaches; plums; quandongs

2.91 Cherries, nectarines; peaches; plums;

Exotic vegetation Pines (both commercial and others); Paulownia; willows; ash

2.71 pines

Vines Grapes; hops; kiwifruit; passionfruit 1.81 grapes Citrus Grapefruit; lemons; limes;

mandarins; oranges; tangelos 0.51 Lemons; limes

Exotic flowers Proteas; Leucodendron; carnations; irises; daffodils; tulips; lilies; gerberas; lisianthus

0.27

Perennials Artichokes; asparagus; horseradish; rhubarb

0.22

Berries Blackcurrant; blackberry; boysenberry; loganberry; raspberry; redcurrant; strawberry; tayberry; youngberry

0.18 strawberries

Nuts Almonds; cashews; chestnuts; hazelnuts; macadamias; pecans; pistachios; walnuts

0.15 Chestnuts, walnuts

Leafy greens Celery; Chinese greens; endive; lettuce; silver beet; spinach

0.04 Lettuce

Alliums Garlic; leeks; onions; shallots 0.03 Onions Orchards/miscellaneous

Olives, figs, persimmon, tea, coffee. Tobacco

0.02 Olives

1 Not all landuses in each GIS category are represented in the 6th Creek sub-catchment.



Fig. 3. Distribution of the main landuses in the 6th Creek sub-catchment.

native vegetationbroadscale grazingrecreationapples/pearsstonefruitpinesvineslemons/limesstrawberries

3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PESTICIDE IMPACT RATING INDEX (PIRI)

A detailed overview of PIRI is given in Appendix 1. Briefly, PIRI is a screening tool that ranks

the relative risk of pesticides to move off-site to surface or groundwater and/or the potential

to have an ecotoxicological impact on a range of organisms. The tool considers site

conditions such as soil texture, organic carbon content, slope, and climatic data as well as

pesticide parameters, (such as persistence, sorption to soil and toxicity), to rank the potential

risk of off-site movement of pesticides relative to one another. Details of the input

parameters required for an assessment by PIRI are given in Table 2 and discussed in more

detail in the following section.

4. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

4.1 PESTICIDE USE DATA

The pesticide use data was obtained by interviewing 2-3 growers for each main landuse

assessed and going through their spray diaries for the last 1-2 years (2002 and 2003). The

growers were selected following discussion with colleagues from PIRSA (Primary Industries

South Australia) who worked with growers in the different industries being surveyed. They



recommended growers on the basis of their willingness to participate in the survey and their

representation of “usual” practice in the specific industry. The data compiled from the

growers was then discussed with the main chemical supplier in the Adelaide Hills for

verification about rates of use and frequency of application. When there was a range in rates

of use or frequency of application of a chemical the PIRI assessment was conducted using

the highest and lowest rates and/or frequencies supplied by the growers. These options are

indicated on the summaries of the PIRI assessment.

The main landuses assessed using PIRI were:

• apples Malus domestica Borkh.,

• cherries Prunus avium L.,

• vines Vitis spp.,

• lemons Citrus limon and

• strawberries Fragaria virginiana.

Details of the rates and frequency of application of the pesticides used in the main landuses

studied are given in Appendix 2.

Although native vegetation covered the largest percentage of the area in the 6th Creek sub-

catchment the use of pesticides in this landuse is sporadic and limited to spot spraying of

woody weeds, such as blackberries, Rubus sp. and broom, Cytisus sp. These weeds are

controlled, as required, by spot applications of Garlon (triclopyr) or Brushoff (ammonium

sulfamate) or Grazon (10.2% picloram triisopropanolamine salt and 39.6% 2,4-D

triisopropanolamine salt). Other weeds are controlled by spot applications of Roundup

(glyphosate). Owing to the method of application and the intermittent frequency of

application (i.e. only applied on an “as-needs” basis) it was not possible to conduct a PIRI

assessment for this landuse.



The next largest landuse on the basis of percentage area was broadscale grazing. Generally

very few, if any, pesticides are used on pastures in the Mt Lofty Ranges. A chemical supplier

suggested the following chemicals (MCPA and Tebutreen, or Bromoxynil, or Tigrex or Le

Mat) might be used on pastures but discussions with growers revealed negligible chemical

use. Consequently no PIRI assessment was made for this landuse.

4.2 OTHER INPUT PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR PIRI ASSESSMENT

The input parameters needed to use the PIRI tool to assess the risk of off-site movement of

pesticides are given in Table 2. The sources of information for each parameter are also

given in Table 2. For many of the input parameters only a few options may be available in

PIRI e.g. for soil texture the user must select one of a selection of soil textural classes, while

for other parameters e.g. minimum average air temperature, specific values are required

from the user.



Table 2. Input parameters for PIRI Farm Attributes

Parameter Importance Comment Source of material Soil type *** Texture class Field observation or

soil map Months ** Period of special

interest

Target species **** Fish, daphnia, rat, alga, human, other

Ecotoxicological databases listed in websites.

Field cover * Field observation Soil moisture * Wet/dry Filed observation or

calculation Soil organic matter ***** Express as % Soil map or

Measurement Total rainfall in period *** mm Maps, measurement

www.bom.gov.au Irrigation in period *** mm Survey data Recharge rate ** mm Maps, other, default % rainfall recharging ** Ratio Measurement or

default % irrigation recharging

** Ratio Measurement or default

Average minimum air temperature

** Degrees Celscius Maps or measurement www.bom.gov.au

Average maximum air temperature

** Degrees Celscius Maps or measurement www.bom.gov.au

Nearest water body ** m Map Width of water body ** m Map Slope ** Hard to estimate Measure or map Soil loss **** t / ha / y Map, measure or

deduction Days since application

*** Guess, trial

Spraying data Parameter Source of material Pesticide (chemical) commercial product and active ingredient

Survey

Application rate Survey or default or label rates Fraction of active ingredient Information sheets or label Target pest class Information sheets or label Frequency of application Survey Fraction area sprayed (important for tree crops)

Survey or industry knowledge

Droplet size Growers or use defaults



Information Required for Addition of a New Pesticide to the PIRI database Parameter Source material Target pest class Insecticide, herbicide, arachnicide, fungicide, nematocide Koc Information sheets or web (see Pesticide Manual (ed. Tomlin),

specific web searches for compounds, web searches with sites below)

Half life Information sheets or web search Toxicity (rainbow trout, daphnia, alga, rat, HAL, Water quality guidelines)

Web search (try http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/), Health advisories at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/drinking/standards/summary.html, http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/eh19syn.htm Calculation

Active ingredient for product used

Label; pesticide websites;

Useful references Heller, S.R. and A.E. Herner. 1990. ARS Pesticide Properties Database. US Department of

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systems. Research Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland

Tomlin, Clive (1994) The Pesticide Manual. 10th Edition. BCPC. 12th Edition available for $165 pounds (also on CD for a fee).

Useful websites http://www.chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/ http://www.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html http://www.ent.iastate.edu/List/pesticides_and_regulations.html http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Index.html http://dino.wiz.uni-kassel.de/dain/search2.html http:// (Australian pesticides and veterinary medicines authority) http://eddenet.pmra-arla.gc.ca/4.0/4.1.asp CAUTION When looking up information about products using a database generated in another country it is important to check using local sources that the product is the same. For example, in Australia Topas is registered for use in vineyards and its active ingredient is penconazole. In the North American market another product is sold as Topas but its active ingredient is propiconazole.



5. DATA USED FOR 6TH CREEK SUB-CATCHMENT Table 3. Data from Bureau of Meterology for Mt Lofty, 1969-present Month Average annual

rainfall (mm) Average minimum temperature (0C)

Average maximum temperature (0C)

January 34.0 11.5 24.9 February 26.5 11.5 24.2 March 45.7 10.6 22.8 April 80.5 8.6 18.0 May 122.6 6.9 14.4 June 139.7 5.3 11.6 July 168.8 4.6 10.6 August 146.9 6.8 11.8 September 126.6 5.9 14.6 October 88.4 7.1 16.9 November 52.0 8.7 20.0 December 47.8 10.2 22.6 Table 4. Time period of interest for separate landuses from the 6th Creek sub-catchment. Crop Time period of

interest Total average annual rainfall (mm)

Average minimum temperature (0C)

Average maximum temperature (0C)

Strawberries October - April 374.9 9.7 21.3 Apples August – February 522.2 8.5 19.3 Grapes October – March 294.4 9.0 21.9 Lemons October - March 294.4 9.9 21.9 Cherries August - May 771.0 8.6 19.0



Table 5. Input data used for PIRI assessment for each landuse Input Parameter Strawberries Apples Grapes Lemons Cherries Soil Clay loam Clay loam Clay loam Clay loam Clay loam Period of interest October - April August –

February October – March

October – March

August - May

Toxicity target Rainbow trout Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout

Ground covered Covered Covered Covered Covered Covered Soil moisture Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Organic matter (%) 1%, 3% 1%, 3% 1%, 3% 1%, 3% 1%, 3% Rainfall (total mm) 374.9 522.2 294.4 294.4 771.0 Irrigation for period (mm)

400 125 100 300 25

Av. Min. temp for period (0C)

9.7 8.5 9.0 9.9 8.6

Av. Max. temp. for period (0C)

21.3 19.3 21.9 21.9 19.0

Width of water body (m)

2 2 2 2 2

Distance from crop to water body (m)

1 1 1 1 1

Slope (degrees) (min., max.)

5, 20 5, 20 5, 20 5, 20 5, 20

Width of buffer zone (m)

0 0 0 0 0

Annual soil loss (tonnes/ha)

1 1 1 1 1

Days between pesticide application and irrigation

1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day



6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE PIRI ASSESSMENT

6.1 VARIABILITY IN PESTICIDE DATA

The amount or frequency of application of pesticides is not constant from season to season

but will vary for a number of reasons which are discussed below.

Seasonal factors play an important role in the development of fungal diseases and pest

loads. The risk of a fungal outbreak is greater in seasons when there is a combination of rain

and warm weather. So the number of sprays of fungicides will be greater if there is a “wet

and warm” November/December/January period. For example, the “usual” number of sprays

of Captan (a fungicide, active ingredient captan) on cherries is 2 to 3 but in 2001/2002 there

was a higher and more frequent rainfall in December, so Captan was sprayed 5 times. In

South Australia a network of automatic weather stations have been established at strategic

locations in vineyards. These stations monitor temperature, humidity and rainfall in the

vineyard and the data are automatically sent to the CropWatch SA computer. The data are

checked for accuracy before being processed by AusVit, the decision support software that

advises growers of the risk of downy mildew outbreaks and whether to spray or not. Details

of these programmes can be found at www.cropwatchonline.com and

www.crcv.com.au/products/pamausvit.

Furthermore, certain areas have a higher average rainfall than other areas so there will be

differences in the number of sprays for fungal diseases depending on the location of the farm

and the average rainfall, temperature and humidity in that area during the growing season.

The use of pheromones as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) programme will

also affect the number, types and frequency of insecticides used. Approximately 30% of

apple growers in the Mt Lofty Ranges (Ian Daynes, pers. comm.) do not use pheromone

baiting to control insect pests so these growers will use more insecticides than those that

incorporate IPM into their management programme.



Also the amount of fungicides like winter oil, copper hydroxide or copper oxychloride used on

tree crops such as apples, cherries or lemons, will vary on the size of the tree. Larger

quantities are used on larger trees.

In this assessment of risk of off-site transport of pesticides two options were used for each

landuse where the rates and/or frequency of application of a chemical varied. The options

were lowest rate and lowest frequency as a “best-case” scenario and highest rate and

highest frequency as a “worst-case” scenario.

6.2 VARIABILITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.

The parameters used in the PIRI assessment will vary from season to season or location to

location in the Mt. Lofty Ranges. To cater for the large number of combinations of factors

that would impact on the assessment the parameters that had a large impact on the

assessment (as indicated by importance in Table 2) were varied. In this assessment soil

organic matter and slope were the two parameters that were varied. The total average

monthly rainfall, and average minimum and maximum temperatures were used for the

irrigation period. The irrigation during the growing season was obtained from growers during

the interviews but this would vary seasonally with the rainfall during the period of interest.

6.3 EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PESTICIDES FROM ASSESSMENT

It was not possible to include some chemicals in the PIRI assessment because they were

only used for spot spraying of woody weeds such as blackberries, Rubus sp., and broom,

Cytisus sp, and only on an as-need basis. Also for the PIRI tool to run information about

toxicity of the chemical to the organism of interest, degradation (half-life values), sorption

behaviour (KOC values) and active ingredient of chemical in the commercial product must be

supplied. In some cases one or more of these parameters was not available so these

pesticides were not included in the assessment.



Copper oxychloride, petroleum oil and sulphur have not been included in the PIRI

assessment because the parameters needed for these chemical, such as half-life, active

ingredient etc., are difficult to assess since the active ingredients are not always clear.

EXAMPLE OF INPUT INFORMATION FOR PIRI

Landuse Information



Pesticide Use Information

Output Result from Assessment



7. RESULTS OF PIRI ASSESSMENT

7.1 APPLES

The chemicals used in apple production that varied in either rate or frequency of application

are endosulfan, carbaryl, metiram, diquat, paraquat, captan and trifloxystrobin. In the PIRI

assessment options were run using two slopes: 5 and 20 degrees; two organic carbon

contents: 1% or 5%; and two chemical options as detailed below.

APPLES

Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency)

Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency)

Rate (L or kg/ha)

Frequency Rate (L or kg/ha)

Frequency

Endosulfan 1.9 1 5.7 1 Carbaryl 5 1 5.6 1 Metiram 4.9 3 6 4 Diquat/paraquat 2.8 1 2.8 4 Captan 3 2 3 5 Trifloxystrobin 0.2 2 0.2 3 Table 6A. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in apple production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY APPLES Option A (Lowest rate

&/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency)

% OC

slope Exc/very high

High Med Exc/very high High Med

1 5 Mancozeb Ethefon Paraquat

Diquat Thiram Metiram

Propargite Simazine2 Parathion methyl1

Trifloxy-strobin Carbaryl

Paraquat Diquat Mancozeb Ethefon

Thiram Metiram

Propargite Simazine2 Captan Endosulfan Parathion methyl1 Trifloxy-strobin Carbaryl



Propargite Simazine2 Parathion methyl1


Thiram Metiram

Propargite Simazine2 Captan Endosulfan Parathion methyl1



Table 6A contd. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in apple production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY APPLES Option A (Lowest rate

&/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency)

% OC

slope Exc/very high

High Med Exc/very high

High Med


Diquat Thiram Metiram Simazine2 Trifloxy-strobin

Propargite Parathion methyl1 Carbaryl Captan


Thiram Metiram Simazine2 Captan Trifloxy-strobin

Propargite Carbaryl Endosulfan Parathion methyl1



Propargite Simazine2 Parathion methyl1 Trifloxy-strobin Carbaryl


Thiram Metiram

Propargite Simazine2 Captan Endosulfan Parathion methyl1 Trifloxy-strobin Carbaryl

1Only used in approximately 30% of growers who do not use pheromone baiting program to control insects. 2Simazine use is decreasing in apple production. The risk assessment of Option A (lowest rate and/or frequency of application) showed the

following pesticides were ranked as having a High, Very or Exceedingly High risk of off-site

movement, irrespective of changes in organic carbon content or slope:

Mancozeb, ethefon, paraquat, diquat, thiram, and metiram

The higher rates and/or frequencies of application (Option B) only added simazine (which is

decreasing in use in apple production) and trifloxystrobin to those chemicals listed as High

risk for Option A.



Table 6B. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in apple production for numerous scenarios.

TOXICITY based on LC50 Rainbow Trout APPLES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 5 Endosulfan Chlor-pyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Endosulfan Chlor-pyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Diquat Paraquat

3 5 Endosulfan Chlor-pyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Endosulfan Chlor-pyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl




Table 6B. contd. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in apple production for numerous scenarios. TOXICITY based on LC50 Rainbow Trout APPLES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high High Med Exc/very high High Med

1 20 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Carbaryl Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Diquat Paraquat Carbaryl

3 20 Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl

Metiram Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos Thiram Abamectin Propargite Captan Mancozeb Azinphos methyl


The risk assessment of Option A (lowest rate and/or frequency of application) showed the


movement and impact on fish (based on LC50 Rainbow Trout), irrespective of changes in

organic carbon content or slope:

Endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, abamectin, thiram, propargite, capta, mancozeb, azinphos

methyl and metiram.

Including the higher application rates or frequencies did not change the chemicals ranked as

posing a High or greater risk in the toxicity assessment.



TOXICTY based on USEPA Health Advisory Limits

Of the chemicals used in apple production there were USEPA Advisory Limits available only

for parathion methyl, diquat, paraquat, simazine, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl. For all scenarios

considered all six chemicals ~ parathion methyl, diquat, paraquat, simazine, chlorpyrifos and

carbaryl ~ were rated as posing a High risk to Human Health.

Simazine use is declining in apple production.

The risk assessment based on USEPA Health Advisory Levels (HAL) does not take into

account any removal of chemicals of compounds during water treatment processes. The

assessment made in this report provides an indicative risk for untreated drinking water.

APPLES Main chemicals of concern… Mobility Mancozeb, ethefon, paraquat, diquat, thiram, and metiram. Toxicity ~ LC50 Rainbow Trout Endosulfan, chlorpyrifos, thiram, propargite, capta, mancozeb, azinphos methyl and metiram.

Toxicity ~ USEPA Health Advisory Limits The risk assessment based on USEPA Health Advisory Levels (HAL) does not take into



Parathion methyl, diquat, paraquat, simazine, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl



7.2 CHERRIES

The chemicals used in cherry production that varied in either rate or frequency are pirimicarb,

propiconazole and captan. In the PIRI assessment options were run using two slopes: 5 and

20 degrees; two organic carbon contents: 1% or 5%; and two chemical options as detailed

below.

CHERRIES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency)


Rate (L or kg/ha)


Frequency

Pirimicarb 1.25 2 1.4 2 Propiconazole 0.625 2 0.75 4 Captan 3.125 2 3.5 5 Table 7A. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in cherry production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY CHERRIES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high

High Med Exc/very high High Med

1 5 Pirimicarb Paraquat Mancozeb

Diquat

Propicon-azole Carbaryl

Pirimicarb Paraquat Mancozeb

Diquat Propicon-azole

Captan Carbaryl

3 5 Pirimicarb Paraquat Mancozeb

Diquat


Pirimicarb Paraquat Mancozeb


Captan Carbaryl



Table 7A. contd. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in cherry production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY CHERRIES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 20 Pirimicarb Mancozeb Paraquat

Diquat

Propicon-azole Carbaryl Dimethoate Captan

Pirimicarb Mancozeb Paraquat

Diquat Propicon-azole Captan

Carbaryl Dimeth-oate

3 20 Pirimicarb Mancozeb Paraquat

Diquat


Pirimicarb Mancozeb Paraquat


Captan Carbaryl




Pirimicarb, paraquat, mancozeb, and diquat.

The higher rates and/or frequencies of application (Option B) only added propiconazole and

captan to those chemicals listed as High or greater risk for Option A. Increasing the organic

carbon content decreased the relative risk of some other chemicals, while increasing the

slope increased the relative risk of some chemicals.



Table 7B. contd. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in cherry production for numerous scenarios. TOXICITY based on LC50 RAINBOW TROUT CHERRIES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high High Med Exc/very high

High Med

1 5 Captan Mancozeb Carbaryl

Captan Mancozeb Pirimicarb Carbaryl

3 5 Captan

Mancozeb Captan Mancozeb

1 20 Captan

Mancozeb Pirimicarb Carbaryl

Captan Mancozeb Pirimicarb

Carbaryl Propicon- azole

3 20 Captan

Mancozeb Pirimicarb Carbaryl

Captan Mancozeb

Pirimicarb Carbaryl


following pesticides were ranked as having a High, Very or Exceedingly High risk of toxic

impact based on LC50 values for Rainbow Trout:

Captan and mancozeb.

Increasing the rate or frequency of application only added pirimicarb to those chemicals rated

as having a High or greater risk of toxic impact based on LC50 values for Rainbow Trout.


For the chemicals listed as used in cherry production there were USEPA Health Advisory

Limits available only for paraquat, diquat and carbaryl. For all four scenarios all three

pesticides, paraquat, diquat and carbaryl, were rated as Very to Exceedingly High risk.






CHERRIES Main chemicals of concern… Mobility Pirimicarb, paraquat, mancozeb, and diquat Toxicity ~ LC 50 Rainbow Trout Captan, and mancozeb




Paraquat, diquat, carbaryl



7.3 GRAPES

The chemicals used in vineyards that varied in either rate or frequency are mancozeb,

glyphosate, esfenvalerate, and trifloxystrobin. In the PIRI assessment options were run

using two slopes: 5 and 20 degrees; two organic carbon contents: 1% or 5%; and two

chemical options as detailed below.

GRAPES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency)


Rate (L or kg/ha)


Frequency

Mancozeb 3 3 3 6 Glyphosate 3.5 1 3.5 2 Esfenvalerate 0.33 1 0.33 2 Trifloxystrobin 0.2 2 0.2 3 Table 8A. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in vineyards for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY GRAPES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 5 Paraquat Diquat Mancozeb

Glyphosate Metalaxyl1

Carbaryl2

Paraquat Diquat Mancozeb

Metalaxyl1 Carbaryl2 Trifloxy-strobin


Glyphosate Carbaryl2


Carbaryl2


Metalaxyl1 Trifloxy-strobin Carbaryl2 Simazine3 Glyphosate Glufosinate


Meta-laxyl1 Trifloxy-strobin

Carbaryl2 Glufosin-ate


Metalaxyl1 Carbaryl2


Metalaxyl1 Carbaryl2 Trifloxy-strobin

1 Metalaxyl is not commonly used. Only used if preventative Cu and S treatments have not worked and there is an attack of downey mildew. 2 Carbaryl is rarely used. Only applied to 1 year old vines to control cut worms and black African beetles. 3 Simazine use is declining in vineyards.



The following pesticides were ranked as having an exceedingly or very high risk of off-site


Mancozeb, paraquat and diquat.

The higher rates and/or frequencies of application (Option B) only added paraquat and

carbaryl to those chemicals listed for Option A. Increasing the organic carbon content

decreased the relative risk of some other chemicals, while increasing the slope increased the

relative risk of some chemicals.

Table 8B. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in vineyards for numerous scenarios. TOXICITY based on LC50 Rainbow Trout GRAPES Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 5 Esfenvaler-arate

Mancozeb Esfenvaler-arate Mancozeb




Mancozeb

Carbaryl Esfenvaler-arate Mancozeb

Carbaryl




following pesticides were ranked as having a High or greater risk of toxic impact based on

LC50 for Rainbow Trout:

Esfenvalerarate, and mancozeb


For the chemicals assessed from use in vineyards USEPA Health Advisory Limits were

available only for diquat, paraquat, simazine, carbaryl and sulphur. For all the scenarios



considered sulphur was assessed to pose a Very Low risk while diquat, paraquat, simazine

and carbaryl were rated to pose a Very or Exceedingly High risk.




Grapes Mobility Mancozeb, paraquat, diquat. Toxicity ~ LC50 Rainbow Trout Esfenvalerarate




Diquat, paraquat, simazine (use is declining), carbaryl



7.4 LEMONS

The chemicals used in citrus production that varied in either rate or frequency are

diquat/paraquat, and glufosinate ammonium. In the PIRI assessment options were run

using two slopes: 5 and 20 degrees; two organic carbon contents: 1% or 5%; and two

chemical options as detailed below.

LEMONS Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency)


Rate (L or kg/ha)


Frequency

Diquat/paraquat 2.8 3 2.8 4 Glufosinate ammonium

3 1 3 2

Table 9A. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in lemon production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY LEMONS Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 5 Diquat Paraquat

Triclopyr Glyphosate

Diquat Paraquat


3 5 Diquat Paraquat


Diquat Paraquat


1 20 Diquat Paraquat

Triclopyr

Glyphosate Diquat Paraquat

Triclopyr Glyphosate Glufosinate ammonium1

3 20 Diquat Paraquat


Diquat Paraquat

Triclopyr Glyphosate Glufosinate ammonium1

1 Very rarely used. The risk assessment of Option A (lowest rate and/or frequency of application) showed the

following pesticides were ranked as having a High, Very High or Exceedingly High risk of off-

site movement, irrespective of changes in organic carbon content or slope:

Diquat, paraquat, and triclopyr.

The higher rates and/or frequencies of application (Option B) did not add any pesticides to

those chemicals listed for Option A. Increasing the organic carbon content decreased the

relative risk of some other chemicals, while increasing the slope increased the relative risk of

some chemicals.



Table 9B. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in lemon production for numerous scenarios.

TOXICITY based on LC50 RAINBOW TROUT LEMONS Option A (Lowest rate &/or frequency) Option B (Highest rate &/or

frequency) % OC

slope Exc/very high


High Med

1 5 Diquat Diquat Paraquat




The risk assessment of Option A (lowest rate and/or frequency of application) showed no

pesticides were ranked as having a High or greater risk of toxic impact based on LC50

values for Rainbow trout:


For the chemicals listed as used in lemon production there were USEPA Health Advisory

Limits available only for paraquat and diquat. For all scenarios listed both paraquat and

diquat were rated with an Exceedingly High risk.






LEMONS Mobility Diquat, paraquat, and triclopyr. Toxicity ~ LC50 Rainbow Trout




Paraquat, diquat



7.5 STRAWBERRIES

There was no variation in either rate or frequency of chemicals used in strawberry

production. In the PIRI assessment options were run using two slopes: 5 and 20 degrees;

two organic carbon contents: 1% or 5%; and two chemical options as detailed below.

Table 10A. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in strawberry production for numerous scenarios. MOBILITY %OC slope Exc/very high High Med 1 5 Maldison

Iprodione Methomyl Dimethoate

3 5 Iprodione Maldison Methomyl

1 20 Maldison Methomyl Iprodione Dimethoate

Captan

3 20 Maldison Methomyl Iprodione

Dimethoate

The risk assessment showed the following pesticides were ranked as having an exceedingly

or very high risk of off-site movement, irrespective of changes in organic carbon content or

slope:

Maldison, methomyl, iprodione, dimethoate.

Changing the slope or the organic carbon content made no difference to those compounds

ranked as having an exceedingly or very high risk of transport off-site.



Table 10B. PIRI assessment of chemicals used in strawberry production for numerous scenarios. STRAWBERRIES TOXICITY based on LC50 Rainbow Trout %OC slope Exc/very high High Med 1 5 Endosulfan

Maldison Captan

Abamectin

3 5 Endosulfan Maldison

Abamectin Captan

1 20 Endosulfan Maldison Captan

Abamectin

Methomyl Iprodione

3 20 Endosulfan Maldison Captan

Abamectin

The risk assessment showed the following pesticides were ranked as having an exceedingly

or very high risk or off-site movement, irrespective of changes in organic carbon content or

slope:

Maldison, endosulfan, abamectin, captan TOXICTY based on USEPA Health Advisory Limits

For the chemicals listed as used in strawberry production there were USEPA Health Advisory

Limits available only for methomyl and sulphur. For all four scenarios methomyl was rated

as Exceedingly High risk and sulphur was rated as a Very Low risk.






STRAWBERRIES Main chemicals of concern… Mobility Maldison, methomyl, iprodione, dimethoate. Toxicity ~ LC50 Rainbow Trout Maldison, endosulfan, abamectin, captan




Methomyl



7.6 SUMMARY OF PIRI ASSESSMENT ACROSS LANDUSES

The compounds that were ranked as posing an excessively high, very high or high risk for

transport off-site are listed below with the landuses in which they were recorded. Certain

compounds, such as paraquat, mancozeb, carbaryl and captan are used and ranked as

posing a high risk in a number of agricultural activities.

Table 11. Chemicals that were assessed as posing an excessively high, very high or high risk across a number of landuses. The comparison across landuses was made using 1% organic carbon, 5 degree slope and Option A (lowest rate and frequency of pesticide use). MOBILITY Chemical Landuses Paraquat Apples, cherries, grapes, lemons Diquat Apples, cherries, grapes, lemons Mancozeb Apples, cherries, grapes Simazine Apples Iprodione Strawberries Thiram Apples Ethefon Apples Trifloxystrobin Apples Metiram Apples Glyphosate Cherries Pirimicarb Cherries Metalaxyl Grapes Triclopyr Lemons Maldison Strawberries TOXICITY based on LC50 Rainbow Trout (this assessment is restricted by the limited availability of necessary data) Chemical Landuses Mancozeb Apples, cherries, grapes Captan Apples, cherries, strawberries Endosulfan Apples, strawberries Abamectin Apples, strawberries Chlorpyrifos Apples Propargite Apples Azinphos methyl Apples Metiram Apples Maldison Strawberries Esfenvalerarate Grapes



TOXICITY based on USEPA Health Advisory Limits The risk assessment based on USEPA Health Advisory Levels (HAL) does not take into



(this assessment is restricted by the limited availability of necessary data) Chemical Landuses Parathion methyl Apples Diquat Apples, cherries, grapes, lemons Paraquat Apples, cherries, grapes, lemons Simazine Apples, grapes Chlorpyrifos Apples Carbaryl Apples, cherries, grapes Methomyl Strawberries

The aim of this inventory is to collate information about pesticide use in a range of landuses

in the Mt. Lofty Ranges, particularly in the 6th Creek sub-catchment. It is intended that this

inventory would be used to enhance current water monitoring and management programmes.

This report will be made available to S.A. Water and other interested agencies. It is hoped

that this report can be used to further enhance monitoring by identifying those pesticides most

likely to pose a risk to off-site movement in the Mt. Lofty Ranges to be included for

monitoring.



APPENDIX 1

Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI) : For Minimising Off-Site Impacts of Pesticides

Rai Kookana, CSIRO Land and Water,

Ray Correll and Ros Miller, CSIRO Mathematics and Information Sciences,

PMB No 2, Glen Osmond, 5064, Australia

Systematic methods that allow a relative assessment of potential impact of pesticides on water quality are of great value to both pesticide users and regulators in choosing the pesticides and practices with the least detrimental impact. A water quality risk indicator for pesticides, namely Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI), has been developed by CSIRO with support from Land and Water Australia and other agencies. PIRI is a simple screening tool to assess relative risk of pesticides or cropping systems in terms of their potential impact on surface water or groundwater quality and ecosystem health. How is PIRI structured? PIRI is based on three components, namely: Source(s) of threat (pesticide Load) to the asset (L), Transport pathways through which the threat is released to the asset (T), and Value of the asset (water resources threatened) (V). The detriment to water quality is assumed to be the product of L, T and V, where L and T are summed over all the pesticides used on a catchment, i.e.

)LT(Vpesticides∑=Detriment

How are these components quantified? The components L and T are quantified using pesticide characteristics (toxicity, amount used, sorption and persistence in soil) and soil, environmental and other site conditions (water input, soil loss, slope, recharge rate, water table depth etc.). Pesticide load The calculation of pesticide load (L) requires knowledge of the amount of pesticide applied in an area or catchment. This is determined from the total area of the crop, the dosage of active ingredient and the frequency of application during the season. Given that the chemical nature of pesticides is an important determinant of its impact on a water resource, the toxicity of each pesticide, its sorption and half-life in soil is taken into account to estimate total toxic load. Transport The transport factor (T) is assessed separately for surface and ground waters because the associated transport pathways are different. For the ground water component of PIRI, the loss of pesticide during its transport is assessed by the modified version of the commonly used attenuation factor (AF)



index, developed by University of Florida. The AF index was modified to take into account the decreasing organic carbon content with depth from soil surface to groundwater, which has major implications for movement and degradation of a pesticide during its transport to groundwater. The input parameters needed are: organic carbon content, sorption coefficient (Koc) and half-life of a pesticide, as well as soil properties such as porosity, bulk density and recharge rate. For the surface water transport factor, three separate pathways are considered in PIRI. These pathways are

• Runoff water: A pesticide showing low binding affinity to the soil particles can move in dissolved phase with runoff during a rain and/or irrigation event. The amount of runoff is derived from the amount of precipitation and/or irrigation using site specific conditions, such as soil type, moisture conditions, slope of the landscape and type of cover.

• Erosion of soils: Pesticide transported with the soil particles through erosion is taken in proportion of soil loss and sorption of pesticide.

• Spray Drift: Spray drift is a function of many environmental and management variables and methods of application. However, droplet size is considered to be one of the most important parameters. The drfit is calculated based on droplet size, distance to a water body and its size.

The sum of the three pathways represents the overall transport parameter (T) for surface water. Value of the asset The value (V) of water body, which may depend on the size of the water body, its water quality, aesthetic and/or ecological importance, is assessed subjectively by a score system ranging from 1 to 100. The value parameter is only relevant when PIRI is used to assess relative risk among different sites or land-uses associated with different water bodies. What can PIRI do? PIRI can be used for the following.

• To provide a relative rating to different pesticides at a farm scale in terms of their pollution potential to ground water or surface water, and

• To develop a targeted monitoring program based on PIRI assessment. • To identify safe windows of opportunities for spraying with lower risk of off-site

migration. • To assess different land uses at a catchment/subcatchment scale in terms of their

relative impact on water quality. • To understand and communicate the risk profile of pesticides for different trophic

levels in ecosystem: i.e. vertebrates (fish, mammals), invertebrates (daphnia), base of food chain (algae) or for drinking water.



The window for farm information input in PIRI.

The input window for pesticide application rates and frequency. Note: the sequence of execution steps (e.g. update farm information, select pesticides etc.) are as shown by the menu at the bottom of screen.



How easy is PIRI program to use? PIRI has been programmed using TclTk programming language and has been packaged in a user-friendly format. The current version is written in Tcl8.3/Tk8.3, 8.3.0 Windows NT5.1. The program is stand-alone and does not require any software to run it on a PC. PIRI draws input data both from inbuilt databases (e.g. pesticide properties), and user input in interactive mode. The input screens of PIRI have options in the form of dropdown menus. PIRI outputs are in the form of easily understood tables or graphs. For example, the output table shows the pollution potential of each pesticide in categories such as high, medium or low.

The PIRI output window showing rating for potential mobility of pesticides.

The PIRI output window showing rating for potential toxicity of pesticides to fish.



How reliable are results from PIRI? PIRI results has been corroborated against monitoring data for at least two case studies, discussed below. These were selected on the basis of availability of good input data on pesticide use and residue monitoring data to compare with the output data from PIRI. Case 1: PIRI was validated using a pesticide use inventory for several different types of land-uses as well as monitoring data gathered by CSIRO. For cotton production system in NSW, the rating for 14 out of 16 pesticides was consistent with the monitoring data available. Pesticides as having a high to medium pollution potential had been detected in water previously by the monitoring programs. For those pesticides the monitoring program did not detect, PIRI had placed them into the low to very low category. Statistical test indicated that PIRI’s predictions were significant at the 5% level. In the following table, those pesticides that are ticked were detected during monitoring and those with X were not detected. The remaining pesticides were not tested. Rating for cotton pesticides for a NSW catchment

High Medium Low Very Low Endosulfana Profenofosa Thiodicarb 2,4-D Trifluralin × Metalochlora Aldicarb × Chlorpyrifosa Pendimethalina Prometryna Omethoate × Diurona Parathion

methyl Dicofol × Dimethoate ×

Phorate Thidizuron × Fluometuron a Glyphosate Amitraz ×

Methomyl ×

Pesticides that are ticked were detected during monitoring and those with X were not detected. The remaining pesticides were not tested. Case 2: Validation of PIRI was carried out using reliable pesticide use data and residue monitoring in Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. These land-uses in MIA were: rice, citrus, and sorghum, soybean and some horticultural production systems. The results showed about 84% success in predicting whether a pesticide would be detected in the surface water. Overall, out of the nineteen pesticides tested, only three were not consistent with PIRI predictions.



Rating for pesticides for MIA region in NSW

High Medium Low Very Low Benzofenap Atrazinea Maldisona Bensulfuron methyl Diurona Bromacila Cypermethrin× Clethodim Endosulfana Chlorpyrifosa Dicamba Methomyl× Metolachlora Diazinona Propanil× Monocrotophos× Thiobencarba Molinatea Methidathion× Primicarb Trifluralin× (detected once)

MCPAa Terbufos×

Lambda cyhalothrin×

Thiodicarb

Pesticides that are ticked were detected during monitoring and those with X were not detected. The remaining pesticides were not tested. Both studies showed that PIRI had a high success rate in indicating pesticide mobility and thus produce reliable results. A summary of key features of PIRI

• PIRI is simple screening tool to assess off-site migration potential of pesticide and risk to different species based on their toxicity to aquatic organisms at different trophic levels.

• PIRI is not data-hungry. Most of the input data needed in PIRI is inbuilt or easily available. The inbuilt databases however, can be modified if more reliable data are available.

• The comparison of PIRI results against monitoring data available shows that the predictions are generally reliable.

• PIRI is easy to use and does not require modelling skills needed to run a simulation model.

• PIRI provides relative risk and not designed to predict concentrations of pesticide likely to reach surface or ground water.

PIRI can be particularly useful tool in identifying safe windows for pesticide spray operations, in designing pesticide-monitoring programs and in identifying pesticides that need to be targeted for better management for minimising the off-site impacts of pesticides on water quality. PIRI is being used not only in Australia but also in several other countries, namely, Ecuador, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syria and Bangladesh under projects sponsored by Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under FAO/WHO Food and Environment Program. Currently a GIS version of PIRI is being developed that has the capability of Monte-Carlo simulations for uncertainly analysis. Some fruther details on PIRI are also available on the web: http://www.cmis.csiro.au/envir/Research/PesticideRisk/index.htm For further details please contact: Dr Rai Kookana or Dr Ray Correll CSIRO PMB No 2 Glen Osmond, 5064, Australia. Ph (+61-8) 83038450, fax (+61-8) 83038565 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]



APPENDIX 2 Pesticide use for selected crops representing the main landuses in the

6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty Ranges Pomefruit (apples Malus domestica Borkh.) (Most chemicals listed for apples are also used for pears) Chemical Tradename %active

ingredient Rate (kg or L/ha)

Frequency

mancozeb Dithane 80% 6 3 chlorpyrifos Lorsban 50% 1 1 carbendazim Bavistin 50% 1.2 1 endosulfan Thiodan 30% 1.9 – 5.71 1 carbaryl Bugmaster 50% 5 – 5.6 1 glyphosate2 Roundup 36% 4 1 simazine2 Simazine 50% 4 1 oryazalin2 Surflan 50% 4 1 thiram Thiragranz 80% 4.5 1 azinphos methyl3 Gusathion 20% 4 1 metiram Polyram 70% 4.9 - 6 3 - 4 parathion methyl3 Parathion-methyl 500 50% 3.75 2 abamectin4 Biomectin 18% 0.75 1 propargite4 Omite 30% 5.5 1 ethefon Etheral 48% 1.4 1 diquat/paraquat Sprayseed 11.5% diquat;

13.5% paraquat2.8 1 - 4

captan Captan 80% 3 2 - 5 fenoxycarb3 Insegar 25% 0.8 5 trifloxystrobin Flint 50% 0.2 2-3 No PIRI assessment was done on the following because there was no chemical or toxicity information for these compounds petroleum oil Winter oil 86.1% 20 - 841 0.5 - 1 copper hydroxide Kocide 50% 2 - 61 1 dodene Dodine 2.24 - 2.6 1 - 2 fenarimol Rubigan 12% 0.45 3 cyprodinil Chorus 50% 0.8 2 penconazole Topas 10% 0.7 4 diuron Freeway 50% 0.4 1 Liaise 8 1 Citteret 0.28 1 indoxacarb Avatar 40% Cyclex dithianon Delan 70% fenbutatin4 Torque 55% 0.6 1-2 Stoby 2-3 prothiofos (only on pears) Tokuthion 50% 2 1-2 1Rate is dependent upon tree size; 2Herbicides are applied only approximately 1m either side of tress and not between rows so the amount applied is corrected for in the PIRI assessment by decreasing the area treated to 30%. Simazine use has declined in apple production. 3These chemicals are used only by approximately 30% of growers who do not use pheromone baiting to control insects 4 The miticides are alternated from year to year to minimise the development of resistance.



Stonefruit (cherries Prunus avium L.) Virtually no insecticides used in cherries No pre-emergent herbicides are used. In 6th Creek sub-catchment the chemicals listed for cherries are also used on nectarines, peaches and plums. Chemical Tradename % active

ingred-ient

Rate (kg or L/ha)

Frequency

pirimicarb Pirimor 50% 1.25 - 1.4 2 mancozeb Dithane 80% 6 1 propiconazole Tilt 41.8% 0.625 - 0.75 2 - 4 captan Captan 80% 3.125 - 3.5 2 - 5 carbaryl Bugmaster 50% 3.6 2 paraquat/diquat Sprayseed 11.5%

diquat/ 13.5% paraquat

2.8 1

iprodione Rovral 41.6% 1 2 dimethoate Cygon 23.4% 2.1 1 glyphosate2 Roundup 36% 42 1 No PIRI assessment was done on the following because there was no chemical or toxicity information for these compounds petroleum oil Winter oil 86.1% 17.5 - 201 1 copper hydroxide

Kocide 50% 5.6 - 7.51 4

chlorethoxyphos Fortress 1 - 2.1 1 - 3 Liaise 0.4 2 Sennefos 5 2

1Rate is dependent upon tree size so for the PIRI assessment used lowest rate and lowest frequency as minimum case and highest rate and highest frequency as maximum case 2Herbicides are applied only approximately 1m either side of tress and not between rows so the amount applied is corrected for this in PIRI assessment by specifying the area treated as 30%.



Vines (grapes Vitis spp.) The full list of agrochemicals registered for use in Australian viticulture can be found at http://www.awri.com.au/agrochemicals/registered_chemicals/ Chemical Tradename % active ingredient Rate (kg or L/ha) Freque-

ncy mancozeb Dithane1 80% 3 3-6 simazine Simazine 50% 0.6 1 metalaxyl Ridomil2 15% 1.5 1 carbaryl Bugmaster3 50% 3.6 2 glufosinate Basta 20% 3.5 2 paraquat/diquat Sprayseed 11.5% diquat/

13.5% paraquat 3 2

glyphosate Roundup5 36% 3.5 1-2 Oxyflurofen, n-methylpyrrolidone

GoalCT 24% oxyflurofen + 10.8% n-methylpyrrolidone

0.175 1

penconazole Topas4 10% 0.157 1 triadimenol Bayfidan4 25% 0.15 1 esfenvalerate Sumiguard 8.4% 0.33 1-2 trifloxystrobin Flint 500 WG 50% 0.2 2-3 tebufenozide Mimic 700

WP 70% 0.172 2

No PIRI assessment was done on the following because there was no chemical or toxicity information for these compounds sulfur Thiovit 80% 6 4-6 copper hydroxide Kocide1 50% 3 3-6 myclobutanil Mycloss4 12.5% 0.2 1 fenarimol Rubigan4 12% 0.25 1 indoxacarb Avatar 40% 0.125 2-3 alpha-cypermethrin Alpha 100 96% dithianon Delan WP 70% 0.55 2-3 azoxystrobin Amistar 80% pyrimethanil Scala 40% 1.5 1 fenhexamid Teldor 500

SC 50%

cyprodinl & fludioxonil

Switch 35% cyprodinl + 25% fludioxonil

0.8 1

1 Most growers would spray fungicides every fortnight from Oct. to Dec., however for late maturing grape varieties fungicides may be sprayed as late as March. In McLaren Vale there may be a total of 6 sprays per season while in a wetter environment ie Adelaide Hills, there may be up to 10 sprays in the season 2 Metalaxyl only used if there is an attack of downy mildew and the preventative Cu and S treatments have not worked. Not very commonly used. 3 Rarely used. Only applied to 1 year old vines to control cut worms and black African beetles. 4 In one season only 3 of these would be used. They are alternated to minimise the development of resistance. No more than 3 sprays total in a season are allowed. 5Herbicides are applied only approximately 1m either side of tress and not between rows so the area treated was corrected in PIRI assessment to 30%.



Citrus (lemons Citrus limon L.) Most citrus growers do not need to use insecticides Chemical Tradename % active

ingredient Rate (kg or L/ha)

Frequency

triclopyr Garlon 600 60% 1.7 1 diquat/paraquat Sprayseed 11.5%

diquat/ 13.5% paraquat

2.8 3-4

glyphosate Roundup 36% 21 4 glufosinate ammonium2

Basta 20% 3 1-2

No PIRI assessment was done on the following because there was no chemical or toxicity information for these compounds petroleum oil Winter oil 86.1% 20 1 copper hydroxide

Kocide 50% 3 1

Modified polydimethyl-siloxane

Pulse 100%

diuron Freeway 50% maldison Hy-mal 3 115% 0.55 1 1 For spot spraying of broom a higher rate of 4L/ha would be used 2 Very rarely used 3Malathion was not included because it is very rarely used, only once every 5-10 years Berries (strawberries Fragaria virginiana) Chemical Tradename % active ingredient Rate Frequency methomyl Lannate 22.5% 1.5 3 maldison Hy-mal 115% 0.55 1 iprodione Rovral 750 75% 1 10 captan Captan 80% 1.25 4 dimethoate Summit 40% 0.75 3 carbendazim Bavistin 50% 0.5 4 endosulfan Thiodan 30% 1.9 1 glyphosate Roundup 36% 2 1 abamectin Biomectin 1.8% 1 2 No PIRI assessment was done on the following because there was no chemical or toxicity information for these compounds sulfur Thiovit 80% 2 1 Methyl bromide1 0.45 myclobutanil Systhane 40% 0.12 6 pyrimethanil Scala 40% 2 1 1,3-dichloropropene

Telone 94.5%

1 To be banned; is being replaced by Telone

Documents

Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty