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

doi:10.1002/jeq2.20411

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 journal › Article › peer-review

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	1246-1258
Number of pages	13
Journal	Journal of Environmental Quality
Volume	51
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20411
State	Published - Nov 1 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
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.

Funding Information:
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.

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.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Access to Document

10.1002/jeq2.20411

Cite this

@article{d7f41a70020c48d4844fd65b771444bc,

title = "Neonicotinoid pesticide and nitrate mixture removal and persistence in floating treatment wetlands",

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.",

author = "Lindgren, {Julia K.} and Messer, {Tiffany L.} and Miller, {Daniel N.} and Snow, {Daniel D.} and Franti, {Thomas G.}",

note = "Funding Information: 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. Funding Information: 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. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Authors. Journal of Environmental Quality {\textcopyright} 2022 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.",

year = "2022",

month = nov,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1002/jeq2.20411",

language = "English",

volume = "51",

pages = "1246--1258",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neonicotinoid pesticide and nitrate mixture removal and persistence in floating treatment wetlands

AU - Lindgren, Julia K.

AU - Messer, Tiffany L.

AU - Miller, Daniel N.

AU - Snow, Daniel D.

AU - Franti, Thomas G.

N1 - Funding Information: 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. Funding Information: 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. 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.

PY - 2022/11/1

Y1 - 2022/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139913756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85139913756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jeq2.20411

DO - 10.1002/jeq2.20411

M3 - Article

C2 - 36201521

AN - SCOPUS:85139913756

VL - 51

SP - 1246

EP - 1258

IS - 6

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this