title: Comparative environmental impact assessment of herbicides used on genetically modified and non-genetically modified herbicide-tolerant canola crops using two risk indicators.
abstract: Canola (Brassica napus L.) is the third largest field crop in Australia by area sown. Genetically modified (GM) and non-GM canola varieties released or being developed in Australia include Clearfield® (imidazolinone tolerant), TT (triazine tolerant), InVigor® (glufosinate-ammonium tolerant), Roundup Ready® - RR® (glyphosate tolerant) and Hyola® RT® (tolerant to both glyphosate and triazine). We used two risk assessment approaches - the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) and the Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI) - to compare the environmental risks associated with herbicides used in the canola varieties (GM and non-GM) that are currently grown or may be grown in the future. Risk assessments found that from an environmental impact viewpoint a number of herbicides used in the production of TT canola showed high relative risk in terms of mobility and ecotoxicity of herbicides. The EIQ field use rating values for atrazine and simazine in particular were high compared with those for glyphosate and trifluralin. Imazapic and imazapyr, which are only used in Clearfield® canola, had extremely low EIQ field use rating values, likely reflecting the very low application rates used for these chemicals (0.02 to 0.04kg/ha) compared with those used for atrazine and simazine (1.2 to 1.5kg/ha). The PIRI assessment showed that irrespective of the canola variety grown, trifluralin posed a high toxicity risk to fish (Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss), algae and Daphnia sp. While the replacement of trifluralin with propyzamide had little effect on the mobility score, it greatly decreased the ecotoxicity score to fish, algae and Daphnia sp. due to the lower LC50 values for propyzamide compared with trifluralin. This study has shown that based on likelihood of off-site transport of herbicides in surface water and potential toxicity to non-target organisms, the GM canola varieties have no advantage over non-herbicide tolerant (non HT) or Clearfield® canola.
authors.affiliation: CSIRO Land and Water, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia. Electronic address: Danni.Oliver@csiro.au.
authors.forename: Danielle P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Oliver
authors.affiliation: CSIRO Land and Water, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia. Electronic address: rai.kookana@csiro.au.
authors.forename: Rai S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Kookana
authors.affiliation: Formerly CSIRO Mathematics and Information Sciences, Australia. Electronic address: ros.miller@bigpond.com.
authors.forename: Rosalind B
authors.initials: RB
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.affiliation: Formerly CSIRO Mathematics and Information Sciences, Australia. Electronic address: rho.environmetrics@bigpond.com.
authors.forename: Raymond L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Correll
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000235:genetics*; D029688:Brassica napus / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology*; D018556:Crops, Agricultural / Q000187:drug effects*; D006540:Herbicides / Q000633:toxicity*; D030821:Plants, Genetically Modified / Q000187:drug effects*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors
chemical_list: D006540:Herbicides
keywords: EIQ; PIRI; Pesticides; Risk assessment; Risk indicators