ارزیابی زیست محیطی سموم کشاورزی مورد استفاده در مزارع پنبه (Gossypium herbaceum L.) استان گلستان

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد گرگان

2 دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

چکیده

مصرف سموم خسارت ناشی از آفات و بیماری را کاهش می­دهد، ولی در عوض آلودگی محیط زیست٬ انسان٬ دام٬ آبزیان، حشرات و غیره را سبب می شود. این مقاله اثرات منفی سموم مورد استفاده در مزارع پنبه (Gossypium herbaceum L.) را با استفاده از مدل EIQ مورد بحث و بررسی قرارداد است نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که مصرف سموم بیشترین تأثیر را در بین سه مؤلفه اصلی کارگران مزرعه، مصرف­کنندگان و جزء اکولوژیک بر بخش اکولوژیک که شامل اجزاء آبزیان، زنبورها، موجودات مفید و پرندگان بود داشت. در بین حشره­کش‌ های مورد استفاده، پروفنفوس (کواکرون) و تیودیکارپ (لاروین) دارای بیشترین ضریب اثر محیطی مزرعه­ای بودند. بیشترین ضریب اثر محیطی مزرعه­ای در بین علف­کش­ها مربوط به تریفورالین (ترفلان) بود. بین میزان شاخص تأثیر زیست محیطی مزرعه ای آفت­کش­ها و عملکرد پنبه رابطه­ای مثبت معنی­دار و مستقیمی وجود داشت. این عبارت بدان معنی نیست که افزایش عملکرد مستلزم استفاده بیشتر از سموم می‌باشد بلکه از طریق راه­های مختلف میزان عملکرد اقتصادی را حفظ و اثرات مخرب زیست محیطی سموم را کاهش داد اجرا سیستم‌های مدیریتی مختلف مبارزه تلفیقی آفات و علف­های هرز جهت کاهش مصرف سموم توصیه می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Environmental Assessment of Agricultural Pesticides Used in Cotton Fields in Golestan Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • reza arefi 1
  • afshin soltani 2
  • hosein ajamnorozei 1
1 Islamic Azad University of Gorgan
2 University of Gorgan
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Any chemical that enters the environment has destructive effects on it. Herbicides and pesticides are no exceptions as they are made of chemical materials. Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) is a method to assess the impact of pesticides on the environment, evaluate the pesticides and chemicals involved in nature and their impact on the farm worker, consumers, and beneficial living organisms. Moien Aldin et al. (2014) assessed the environmental hazards resulted by the use of insecticides recorded in Iran and reported that the environmental hazards caused by insecticides per hectare of cultivated land are higher in the provinces of Kerman, Mazandaran, and Golestan compared to those of other provinces.
Bazrgar et al. (2013) reported that the environmental stresses (such as the application of pesticides) affect three main components including farm workers, consumers, and ecological components in farming, with its most negative effect related to the application of pesticides on the ecological component. In addition, the results of this study showed that increasing the use of pesticides in the field had no relation with yield in terms of the diversity of pesticides and the quantitative amount of active ingredient. Bues et al. (2004) in the study of the environmental effects of tomato production using EIQ showed that insecticides had the highest environmental impact. Considering the increasing trend in the use of pesticides in agriculture, it is necessary to study their environmental impacts. The purpose of this study is to investigate the environmental impacts of pesticides on cotton fields in Golestan province.
Materials and Methods
A total of 100 cotton fields were selected around the cities of Ali-Abad and Aghghala in Golestan province over two agricultural years of 2015-2016. These farms were selected such that to include a variety of farmers. Information on various pesticides was collected from these fields based on pest type (insect, mites, and pathogenic fungi) and herbicides type of poison, the number of poisoning times, and the concentration of effective material. EIQ has been used to assess the environmental impacts of pesticides. There are two types of environmental impact indicators. The first one is the basic environmental impact indicator that is calculated for each molecule of the effective materials of herbicides as well as their toxic effects on workers, consumers, birds, fishes, birds, bees, and beneficial arthropods. The second one, called as EIQ-field use rate (EIQ-FUR), is derived from the basic environmental index and the amount of pesticide use in the field.
Results and Discussion
These coefficients were calculated for the components of effect on the spray-workers, pickers, consumers, applicators, groundwater, aquatic animals, birds, bees, beneficial organisms as well as the mentioned three components. Among these components (farm workers, ecological, and consumer's components), the ecological component showed the maximum impact (71%), with the effect on farm workers (22%) and consumer component (7%) being in the next orders. the highest EIQ-FUR is related to the pesticides with a value of 93.33 and 87% of the total, and the herbicides are in the next rank. The highest EIQ is related to the impact of the pesticides on three main components of farm workers, consumers, and ecological factors, as well as the total EIQ,  was associated with the pesticides of Profenofos and Thiodicarb. The ecological component consists of four subsets including the impact on the beneficial organisms, bees, birds, and aquatic animals; with the used toxins having the most impact on beneficial organisms with 38% of total toxic effects on the main component of ecologic. The highest impact on the main component of farm workers is related to spray-workers while the most impact on the consumer component is related to the consumer organisms.
Conclusion
The use of pest resistant cultivars, the modification of the chemical composition of pesticides, and the elimination of hazardous toxins from the list of pesticides, the implementation of winter crop aggression, the destruction of weeds, deep plowing, winter water, and appropriate drainage are other ways to reduce the use of pesticide and reduce the environmental costs of agricultural production.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Chemical control
  • Environmental impact factor
  • Herbicides
  • Pesticides
Bazrgar, A.B, Soltani, A., Kocheki, AS.R., Zainali, A., and Ghaemi, AS.R. 2013. Environmental impact of different pesticides in the production of sugar beet in Khorasan using EIQ. Journal of Agroecology 5: 122-133. (In Persian with English Summery)
Bindraban, P.S., Frank, D.O., Ferraro, A.C., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A., Smulders, M.J.M., and Vande Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM- related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts, risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil, Report 259, Plant research international B.V., Wageningen. Available in: http://edepot.wur.nl/7954.
Brimner, T.A., Gallivan, G.J., and Stephenson, G.R. 2005. Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Management Science. 61: 47–52.
Bues, R., Bussières, P., Dadomo, M., Dumas, Y., Garcia-Pomar, M.I., and Lyannaz, J.P. 2004. Assessing the environmental impacts of pesticides used on processing tomato crops. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 102: 155-162.
Deihimfard, R., Zand, E., Damghani, A.M., and Soufizadeh, S. 2007. Herbicide risk assessment during the Wheat Self-sufficiency Project in Iran. Pest Management Science 63: 1036 -1045.
Dushoff J., Caldwell B., and Mohler C.L. 1994. Evaluating the environmental effect of pesticides: A critique of the environmental impact quotient. American Entomologist 40: 180–184.
Feola, G., Rahn, E., and Binde, C.R. 2011. Suitability of pesticide risk indicators for Less Developed Countries: A comparison. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 142: 238– 245.
Fisher, J., and Tozer, P. 2009. Evaluation of the environmental and economic impact of roundup ready® canola in the western Australian crop production systems, Technical Report (11/2009), Curtin University of Technology Muresk, School of Agriculture and Environment Northam WA 6401 Australia.
Ioriatti, C., Agnello, A.M., Martini, F., and Kovachk, J. 2011. Evaluation of 330 the environmental impact of apple pest control strategies using pesticide risk indicators. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9999: 1–8.
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139: 1-8.
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 2004. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides: updated EIQ values. New york Food Life Sciences. Bull. 139: 139–146. http://www.nysipm.cornell/edu/publications/EIQ/default.asp.
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 2010. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York’s food and life sciences bulletin. Geneva, NY: NYS Agricultural experiment station, Cornell University. Available online: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/files/EIQ_values_2010p1-4.pdf
Kromann, P., Pradel W., Cole, D., Taipe, A., and Forbes, G.A. 2011. Use of the environmental impact quotient to estimate health and environmental impact of pesticide usage in Peruvian and Ecuadorian potato production. Journal of Environmental Protection 2: 581-591.
Levitan, L. 1997. An overview of pesticide impact assessment systems. Workshop on Pesticide Risk Indicators. Copenhagen, Denmark 12: 21-23.
Levitan, L., Merwin, I., and Kovach, J. 1995. Assessing the relative environmental impacts of agricultural pesticides: The quest for a holistic method. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 55: 153-168.
Macharia, I, Mithöfer, D., and Waibel, H. 2009. Environmental impacts of pesticide use in vegetable subsector in Kenya. African Journal of Horticultural Science 2: 138-151.
Mal, P., Manjunatha, A.V., Siegfried, B., and Mirza Nomman, A. 2011. Technical Efficiency and Environmental Impact of Bt Cotton and Non- Bt Cotton in North India. Journal of Agro Biotechnology Management and Economics 14(3): 164-170.
Mansoureh Mahlouji, R, Kambouzia, J., Zand, A., and Khabbaz Jolfaii, H. 2013. Consideration of environmental impacts of authorized fungicides in Iran using EIQ Model. Journal of Agroecology 2(2): 73-86. (In Persian with English Summery)
Maud, J., Edwards-Jones, G., and Quin, F. 2001. Comparative evaluation of pesticide risk indices for policy development and assessment in the United Kingdom. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86: 59-73.
Moienoddini, S.H.S., Zand, A., Kambozia, J., Mahdavi Damghani, A.M., and Deinimfard, R. 2014. Environmental risk assessment of registered insecticides in Iran using Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) index. 6: 73-76.
Peterson, R.K.D., and Schleier, J.J. III. 2014. A probabilistic analysis reveals fundamental limitations with the environmental impact quotient and similar systems for rating pesticide risks. PeerJ. 2:e364; pmid: 24795854.
Sande, D., Mullen, J., Wetzstein, M., and Houston, J. 2011. Environmental impacts from pesticide use: A case study of soil fumigation in Florida tomato production. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8: 4649-4661
Sikkema, P.H., Van Eerd, L.L., Vyn, R., and Weaver, S.E. 2007. A comparison of reduced rate and economic threshold approaches to weed management in a corn– soybean rotation. Weed Technology 21: 647–655.
Soltani, N., Van Eerd, L., Vyn, R., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P.H. 2007, Weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with dimethenamid plus reduced doses of imazethapyr applied preplant incorporated. Crop Protection 26: 739–745.
Soltani, A., Rajabi, M.H., Zeinali, E., and Soltani, E. 2010. Evaluation of environmental impact of crop production using LCA: wheat in Gorgan, Electronic Journal of Crop Production 3(3): 201-218.
Soltani, N., Nurse, R.E., Van Eerd, L.E., Vyn, R.J., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P.H. 2010. Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with trifluralin plus reduced doses of imazethapyr in dry bean. Crop Protection 29: 364–368.
Stenrød, M., Heggen, EH., Bolli, RI., and Eklo, OM. 2010. Testing and comparison of three pesticide risk indicator models under Norwegian conditions-A case study in the Skuterud and Heiabekken catchments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123: 15–29.
Turgut, C., and Erdogan, O. 2005. The environmental risk of pesticide in cotton production in Aegean region, Turkey. Journal of Applied Science 5(8): 1391-1393.
Whelan, M.J., Walter, C., Smith, B.G., and Pendlington, D. 2005. Pesticide risk management and profiling tool: 'Prompting' a science -based approach to mitigating the risks of water quality impacts from pesticide use in agriculture. Workshop on Agriculture and Water: Sustainability, Markets and Policies, Australia.