4.8 Article

Factors Influencing Neonicotinoid Insecticide Concentrations in Floodplain Wetland Sediments across Missouri

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 18, 页码 10591-10600

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01799

关键词

-

资金

  1. Missouri Department of Conservation
  2. Ducks Unlimited Canada's Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research
  3. MDC
  4. University of Missouri
  5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  6. U.S. Geological Survey
  7. Wildlife Management Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides in North America has led to frequent detection of neonicotinoids in surface waters. Despite frequent surface water detection, few studies have evaluated underlying sediments for the presence of neonicotinoids. Thus, we sampled water and sediments for neonicotinoids during a one-year period at 40 floodplain wetlands throughout Missouri. Analyzed for six common neonicotinoids, sediment samples consistently (63% of samples) contained neonicotinoids (e.g., imidacloprid and clothianidin) in all sampling periods. Mean sediment and aqueous neonicotinoid concentrations were 1.19 mu g kg(-1) (range: 0-17.99 mu g kg(-1)) and 0.03 mu g L-1 (0-0.97 mu g L-1), respectively. We used boosted regression tree analysis to explain sediment neonicotinoid concentrations and ultimately identified six variables that accounted for 31.6% of concentration variability. Efforts to limit sediment neonicotinoid contamination could include reducing agriculture within a wetland below a threshold of 25% area planted. Also, prolonging periods of overlying water >25 cm deep when water temperatures reach/exceed 18 degrees C could promote conditions favorable for neonicotinoid degradation. Results of this study can be useful in determining potential routes and levels of neonicotinoid exposure experienced by nontarget benthic aquatic invertebrates as well as potential means to mitigate neonicotinoid concentrations in floodplain wetlands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据