Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T23:45:11.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Dichlobenil on Two Fishpond Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Oliver B. Cope ,
Joseph P. McCraren  and
Lafayette Eller
Oliver B. Cope
Affiliation:
Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Columbia, Missouri
Joseph P. McCraren
Affiliation:
Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Columbia, Missouri
Lafayette Eller
Affiliation:
Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Columbia, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pond studies were conducted at Tishomingo, Oklahoma with wettable powder 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile (dichlobenil) and at Denver, Colorado with granular dichlobenil to measure chronic effects on fish and other effects on the ecosystem. Decline of the herbicide was rapid at Tishomingo, with only about 3% of the material remaining after 11 days, while at Denver the herbicide took 3 weeks to reach peak concentration in the water and was still measurable in the water after 189 days. Dichlobenil was present in bottom sediments after 312 days at Tishomingo and after 166 days at Denver. Weeds were controlled at both locations, but regrowth occurred after 3 months in ponds treated at 10 and 20 ppm dichlobenil. No immediate mortality was sustained by fish at either locality, but day-to-day mortality was serious at higher concentrations at Tishomingo. Reproduction apparently was affected by higher dichlobenil levels at Tishomingo. Growth of fish was fastest in ponds treated with highest rates of dichlobenil at Tishomingo, and slowest in the untreated ponds. Residues of dichlobenil developed in fish from all ponds, but faster at Tishomingo than at Denver, and larger in high-treatment ponds than in low-treatment ponds. Some pathology was seen in liver, kidney, and pancreas of Tishomingo fish.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1969 , pp. 158 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Cope, Oliver B. 1964. Agricultural chemicals and fresh-water ecological systems, p. 115–127. In Chichester, C. O., Research in Pesticides. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Cope, Oliver B. 1965. Some responses of fresh-water fish to herbicides. Proc. SWC 18:439–445.Google Scholar
3. Frank, P. A., Hodgson, R. H., and Comes, R. D. 1963. Evaluation of herbicides applied to soil for control of aquatic weeds in irrigation canals. Weeds 11:124–128.Google Scholar
4. Gilderhus, Philip A. 1966. Some effect of sublethal concentrations of sodium arsenite on bluegills and the aquatic environment. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95:289–296.Google Scholar
5. Houser, A. 1963. Loss of weight of sunfish following aquatic vegetation control using the herbicide Silvex. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 43:232–237.Google Scholar
6. Hughes, Janice S. and Davis, James T. 1962. Toxicity of selected herbicides to bluegill sunfish. Proc. Louisiana Acad. Sci. XXV:86–93.Google Scholar
7. Sanders, Herman O. 1968. Toxicity of pesticides to the Crustacean, Gammarus lacustris. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Technical Paper 28. 18 pp.Google Scholar
8. Sanders, Herman O. and Cope, Oliver B. 1966. Toxicities of several pesticides to two species of Cladocerans. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95:165–169.Google Scholar
9. Van Valin, Charles C. 1966. Persistence of 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile in aquatic environments. Adv. in Chem. Series 60:271–279.Google Scholar
10. Walker, Charles R. 1964. Dichlobenil as a herbicide in fish habitats. Weeds 12:267–269.Google Scholar