IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i2p271-d1044357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subcellular Responses and Avoidance Behavior in Earthworm Eisenia andrei Exposed to Pesticides in the Artificial Soil

Author

Listed:
  • Carina Lackmann

    (Department of Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 13, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Antonio Šimić

    (Department of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

  • Sandra Ečimović

    (Department of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

  • Alma Mikuška

    (Department of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

  • Thomas-Benjamin Seiler

    (Hygiene-Institut des Ruhrgebiets, Rotthauser Str. 21, 45879 Gelsenkirchen, Germany
    Department of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Henner Hollert

    (Department of Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 13, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
    LOEWE Centre for Translational Biodiversity Genomics (LOEWE-TBG), 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Mirna Velki

    (Department of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000 Osijek, Croatia)

Abstract

Earthworms are key organisms of the soil ecosystem and bioindicators for soil quality. While pesticides are used for the improvement of crop yields, they also present a burden for soil organisms. To understand the complex effects of pesticides on soil organisms, it is important to test these effects in soil exposures to include influences of the soil matrix on the toxicity. Therefore, the aim of this study was the assessment of the effects pesticides on earthworm Eisenia andrei . In an initial screening, active ingredients and commercial preparations were tested for comparison. Since the commercial preparations showed a higher toxicity, all further investigations (biomarkers, multixenobiotic resistance (MXR) activity, and avoidance behavior) were performed using the commercial pesticide formulations only: Sumialfa (esfenvalerate), Calypso (thiacloprid), Frontier (dimethenamid-p), and Filon (prosulfocarb). Significant differences in avoidance behavior were observed for Filon and Frontier. All pesticides inhibited the MXR activity and affected oxidative stress-related markers. Frontier was the only pesticide that did not affect enzymatic biomarkers related to neurotransmission. The results show the potential hazards associated with the usage of the tested pesticides and the importance of evaluating the effects of commercial pesticide preparations for a more realistic insight into the adverse effects on the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Carina Lackmann & Antonio Šimić & Sandra Ečimović & Alma Mikuška & Thomas-Benjamin Seiler & Henner Hollert & Mirna Velki, 2023. "Subcellular Responses and Avoidance Behavior in Earthworm Eisenia andrei Exposed to Pesticides in the Artificial Soil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:271-:d:1044357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/271/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/271/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    2. Dominati, E. & Mackay, A. & Green, S. & Patterson, M., 2014. "A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 119-129.
    3. Christos A. Damalas & Ilias G. Eleftherohorinos, 2011. "Pesticide Exposure, Safety Issues, and Risk Assessment Indicators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Bob B.M. Wong & Ulrika Candolin, 2015. "Behavioral responses to changing environments," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(3), pages 665-673.
    5. Montanarella, Luca & Panagos, Panos, 2021. "The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European Green Deal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marija Kovačević & Nikolina Stjepanović & Luca Zelić & Željka Lončarić, 2023. "Temporal Dynamics of Biomarker Response in Folsomia candida Exposed to Azoxystrobin," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. "Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-38.
    2. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    3. Richter, Andries & Dakos, Vasilis, 2015. "Profit fluctuations signal eroding resilience of natural resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-21.
    4. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    5. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    6. Huiyuan Guan & Yongping Bai & Chunyue Zhang, 2022. "Research on Ecosystem Security and Restoration Pattern of Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    8. Tomasz Jałowiec & Henryk Wojtaszek, 2021. "Analysis of the RES Potential in Accordance with the Energy Policy of the European Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-33, September.
    9. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    10. Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    12. Pérez-Sánchez, Laura & Velasco-Fernández, Raúl & Giampietro, Mario, 2021. "The international division of labor and embodied working time in trade for the US, the EU and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Islam, Moinul & Kotani, Koji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2016. "Climate perception and flood mitigation cooperation: A Bangladesh case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 117-133.
    14. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Schon, N.L. & Dominati, E.J., 2020. "Valuing earthworm contribution to ecosystem services delivery," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Alex. B. McBratney & Damien Field & Cristine L.S. Morgan & Jingyi Huang, 2019. "On Soil Capability, Capacity, and Condition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, June.
    18. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    19. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    20. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:271-:d:1044357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.