Neonicotinoid pesticide and nitrate mixture removal and persistence in floating treatment wetlands

Julia K. Lindgren, Tiffany L. Messer, Daniel N. Miller, Daniel D. Snow, Thomas G. Franti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Mesocosm and microcosm experiments were conducted to explore the applicability of floating treatment wetlands (FTWs), an ecologically based management technology, to remove neonicotinoid insecticides and nitrate from surface water. The mesocosm experiment evaluated three treatments in triplicate over a 21-d period. Floating treatment wetland mesocosms completely removed nitrate-N over the course of the experiment even when neonicotinoid insecticides were present. At the completion of the experiment, 79.6% of imidacloprid and degradation byproducts and 68.3% of thiamethoxam and degradation byproducts were accounted for in the water column. Approximately 3% of imidacloprid and degradation byproducts and 5.0% of thiamethoxam and degradation byproducts were observed in above-surface biomass, while ∼24% of imidacloprid and degradation byproducts, particularly desnitro imidacloprid, and <0.1% of thiamethoxam and degradation byproducts were found in the below surface biomass. Further, 1 yr after the experiments, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and degradation byproducts persisted in biomass but at lower concentrations in both the above- and below-surface biomass. Comparing the microbial communities of mature FTWs grown in the presence and absence of neonicotinoids, water column samples had similar low abundances of nitrifying Archaeal and bacterial amoA genes (below detection to 104 ml−1) and denitrifying bacterial nirK, nirS, and nosZ genes (below detection to 105 ml−1). Follow-up laboratory incubations found the highest denitrification potential activities in FTW plant roots compared with water column samples, and there was no effect of neonicotinoid addition (100 ng L−1) on potential denitrification activity. Based on these findings, (a) FTWs remove neonicotinoids from surface water through biomass incorporation, (b) neonicotinoids persist in biomass long-term (>1 yr after exposure), and (c) neonicotinoids do not adversely affect nitrate-N removal via microbial denitrification.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1246-1258
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Environmental Quality
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Environmental Quality © 2022 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.

Funding

This project was supported with funds from an NSF ESPCOR grant and the Daughtery Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This project was based on research partially supported by the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station with funding from the Hatch capacity funding program (Accession No. 1014685), a Hatch multistate capacity funding grant (W-4045), and of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and USDA-ARS in-house research funds (Project #3042-12630-003-00D). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or the Daughtery Water for Food Global Foundation. Special thanks to Helen Little and Kenneth Oathout for their support on this project. This project was supported with funds from an NSF ESPCOR grant and the Daughtery Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln. This project was based on research partially supported by the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station with funding from the Hatch capacity funding program (Accession No. 1014685), a Hatch multistate capacity funding grant (W‐4045), and of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and USDA‐ARS in‐house research funds (Project #3042‐12630‐003‐00D). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or the Daughtery Water for Food Global Foundation. Special thanks to Helen Little and Kenneth Oathout for their support on this project.

FundersFunder number
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station1014685, W‐4045
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
National Science Foundation Arctic Social Science Program
US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative3042‐12630‐003‐00D
US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
USDA-Agricultural Research Service
Water for Food Daugherty Global Institute

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Environmental Engineering
    • Water Science and Technology
    • Waste Management and Disposal
    • Pollution
    • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Neonicotinoid pesticide and nitrate mixture removal and persistence in floating treatment wetlands'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this