Electronic Supplementary Material to
Pesticide use and biodiversity conservation in the Amazonian agricultural frontier
Luis Schiesari, Andrea Waichman, Theo Brock, Cristina Adams & Britta Grillitsch
METHODS
Pesticide hazard categories. We classified all pesticide formulations according to the four
hazard categories defined by the Brazilian Ministry of Health for human toxicity based on
pesticide labels and leaflets. These are Toxicological Classes I (´Extremely Toxic´), II (´Highly
Toxic´), III (´Moderately Toxic´) and IV (´Slightly Toxic´). Similarly, we classified all pesticide
formulations according to the four hazard categories defined by the Brazilian Ministry of the
Environment for environmental toxicity. These are Environmental Classes I (´Highly Dangerous
to the Environment´), II (´Very Dangerous to the Environment´), III (´Dangerous to the
Environment´) and IV (´Slightly Dangerous to the Environment´).
Definition of recommended doses and frequencies of pesticide application. Minimum
recommended doses, maximum recommended doses, and maximum recommended
frequencies of pesticide application followed technical information presented in the commercial
product labels and leaflets, and were double checked with Agrofit [1], the official, open-access
pesticide database published by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food
Supply. In cases where more than one dose or frequency recommendation could be found for
any given active ingredient because more than one commercial product containing the same
active ingredient were employed, or because recommendations depended on pest species or
intensity of infestation, we took a conservative approach by considering the minimum values of
all minima and the maximum values of all maxima among all commercial products employed, or
among all pest species discriminated. Similarly, some commercial products were registered in
the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply but not for the crops cultivated
in the three case studies; we considered all of these commercial products as legal and took the
minimum value of all minima and the maximum value of all maxima of doses and frequencies
among all crops for which that commercial formulation was registered. Finally, because we are
analyzing actual doses applied in the field, for each active ingredient and case study we used a
+ 5% field manipulation error margin to define whether a dose was below (actual application <
95% minimum recommended dose) or above (actual application > 105% maximum
recommended dose) recommended doses.
In the case of fruit and vegetable smallholder producers, we had access to quantitative data of
doses and frequencies of application of each commercial product and corresponding active
ingredient(s) in each of 220 farms. The dataset comprises 851 farm-by-active ingredient dose
combinations and 354 farm-by-active ingredient frequency combinations (i.e. summing up all
active ingredients used in all farms there are 851 records for doses and 354 records for
frequencies). Sample sizes differ because all commercial products have recommended doses
of application, but not all commercial products have recommended frequencies of application
(as several are to be used ´as needed´). In the case of the large scale sugarcane producer, we
had access to quantitative data of doses and frequencies of application of each commercial
product and corresponding active ingredient(s) in each of 14 areas and their 282 plots. The
dataset comprises all 1752 plot-by-active ingredient dose applications and 1149 plot-by-active
ingredient frequency combinations in the farm in the cycle of 2009/2010. In the case of the large
scale soybean producer, we had access to quantitative data of doses and frequencies of
application of each commercial product and corresponding active ingredient(s) in each of 7
areas and 255 plots. The dataset comprises all 7353 plot-by-active ingredient applications in the
farm in the cycle of 2008/2009 for doses. For frequencies of application we analyzed all
applications conducted within a random sample of 10% of all plots (i.e., 25 plots) in the farm.
When analyzing temporal trends in doses applied in the soybean farm (Figure 2a) we employed
a slightly different approach because for the cycles of 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 we
did not have actual application data per plot but the total volume or mass of each formulation
consumed, and the total area cultivated. Therefore, for comparability in Figure 2a we also
analyzed doses as the total mass consumed divided by the total area cultivated for the cycle of
2008/2009.
Calculation of toxic units. Toxic units were obtained by dividing the total mass of each active
ingredient applied per hectare by its corresponding toxicity to rats (oral LD 50 in mg/kg), which
are used as surrogates to mammals in general and humans in particular, and to model
freshwater organisms including fish (96h LC50 in mg/L; ~2/3 tested with the rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss), aquatic invertebrates (48h EC 50 in mg/L; the water flea Daphnia magna
except for one active ingredient, tested with Daphnia pulex) and algae (72h EC50 in mg/L;
various species). LD50, LC50 and EC50 are standard ecotoxicological variables describing the
median dose or concentration that is lethal to 50% of the experimental population over a given
time interval (LD50, LC50) or that have an effect other than mortality (EC50) to 50% of the
experimental population over a given time interval. As an example, for each active ingredient
this calculation yields how many times the mass of that active ingredient applied per hectare
exceeds the dose necessary to kill half of an experimental rat population during the first 24 h
after oral administration or during 14 days thereafter [2]. Summing up these toxic units for all
active ingredients applied in a given moment in time, one can have an approximate estimate of
the ´total´ toxicity of pesticides for rats. All toxicity data were obtained from PPDB, the Pesticide
Properties Database [3].
PATTERNS OF PESTICIDE USE IN THE AMAZONIAN FRONTIER
table S1. Actual doses and frequencies of applications of pesticides in the three case studies.
All data are averages + 1 SE across all active ingredients applied.
Small scale
Large scale
vegetable and fruit
sugarcane
Large scale
producers
producer
soybean producer
71.3 + 8.5
50.2 + 7.9
56.7 + 6.5
44.5 + 11.4
37.0 + 8.2
46.4 + 6.9
26.8 + 10.3
13.2 + 6.6
10.3 + 4.2
96.0 + 2.0
18.9 + 2.7
10.1 + 2.7
4.9 + 0.8
1.3 + 0.1
0.9 + 0.1
DOSES
% applications outside
recommended range of dosage
% applications below minimum
recommended dose
% applications above
maximum recommended dose
FREQUENCIES
% of AI-by-plot combinations in
which frequency of application
exceeded maximum
recommended frequencies
ratio of the average number of
applications per AI per plot /
maximum recommended
number of applications for that
AI
table S2. Proportion (by mass) of pesticides employed in each case study with respect to the
Toxicological Class (as defined by the Brazilian Ministry of Health) and Environmental Class (as
defined by the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment). Values are percentages of the sum of all
doses of AIs applied in the fruit and vegetable farms, of the total mass of AIs applied in the
sugarcane farm, and of the total mass of formulations in the soybean farm. In parentheses we
show number of active ingredients (vegetable and fruit producers, sugarcane producer) or
formulations (soybean producer) in each class.
Small scale
Large scale
vegetable and fruit
sugarcane
Large scale
producers
producer
soybean producer
I. Extremely Toxic
28.7 (2)
6.4 (1)
17.5 (8)
II. Highly Toxic
5.4 (3)
22.2 (5)
19.0 (11)
III. Moderately Toxic
12.8 (2)
50.5 (5)
38.9 (16)
IV. Slightly Toxic
53.1 (4)
21.0 (3)
24.5 (11)
I. Highly Dangerous to the Environment
0.2 (1)
0.0 (0)
3.4 (1)
II. Very Dangerous to the Environment
46.3 (5)
82.6 (10)
31.6 (21)
III. Dangerous to the Environment
53.5 (5)
17.4 (4)
65.0 (24)
IV. Slightly Dangerous to the Environment
0.0 (0)
0.0 (0)
0.0 (0)
Toxicological Class
Environmental Class
THE WAY AHEAD
table S3. Responsibilities of the various stakeholders involved in pesticide development,
production, distribution, use, regulation and risk assessment, and their potential actions towards
biodiversity conservation in diverse tropical regions. Note that drinking water, food and feed
safety policy areas are not included in this table.
Stakeholder
Important activities with respect to
Challenges for tropical regions
pesticides
with respect to biodiversity
conservation
Intergovernmental

Compiling, evaluating and transferring

Supporting integrated pest
organizations
knowledge on individual pesticides to
management (IPM) projects
(e.g.
(inter)national organizations
and practices
Intergovernmental

Identifying priority hazardous
Forum on Chemical
pollutants that should be banned or
Safety; UN Food and
restricted globally
Agricultural

Organization; UN
Environmental


Promoting science and
assessment and risk management
research
Promoting transnational
Organization for
classification, labelling and quality
Economic
control
Development)
conservation projects
technology transfer and
communication and harmonization of

Supporting biodiversity
Defining technical guidelines on risk
Programme;
Cooperation and

Assisting countries in the
development of national pesticide
legislation (prospective ERA) as well
as surface and groundwater quality
framework legislation (retrospective
ERA)
National governmental
organizations

Implementing national pesticide
registration as well as prospective and

Supporting regional and local
projects and extension
(e.g. ministries;
retrospective risk assessment
services on safe use of
environmental
procedures
pesticides and biodiversity-
Enforcing legislation by adequate
friendly crop management
control
practices
agencies; boards for

the registration of
pesticides)


Implementing risk reduction strategies

Transferring information on national
and/or loan concessions
pesticide use and their potential risks
producers who adhere to
to both global and national
biodiversity-friendly crop
stakeholders
management practices

Implementing/supporting education,

Rewarding with subsidies
Implementing monitoring
and science and technology research
programs for assessing
strategies
environmental integrity and
human health

Funding research on the
ecological impacts of
pesticides at replicated
biome, ecoregion or river
basin scales towards tailormade mitigation strategies for
biodiversity conservation
Local governmental

Supporting national governments to

Promoting farmer
organizations
enforce legislation and control,
organizations to strengthen
(e.g. states;
funding, education and research
implementation of sustainable
municipalities;
strategies
agriculture and awareness for
Providing permits to and control of
biodiversity conservation
extension services)

local pesticide retailers


including waste management
Facilitating local education programs
on safe use
Promoting safe use training,

Enforcing the availability of
less hazardous pesticides
Non-governmental

Compiling, evaluating and transferring

Promoting farmer
organizations (NGOs)
knowledge and data on individual
organizations to strengthen
(e.g. Pesticide Action
pesticides to different stakeholders
implementation of sustainable
Acting as critical observers of policies
agriculture and awareness for
International;
of governmental and
biodiversity conservation
International Union for
intergovernmental organizations
Network; Crop Life


Promoting citizen participation
the Conservation of

Promoting the safe use of pesticides
to demand social
Nature; World Wildlife

Initiating scientific review and
accountability and
monitoring programs that can be used
enforcement of existing
in the retrospective risk assessment
regulations
Fund, etc.)


Prompting initiatives to ban hazardous

Promoting platforms that bring
pesticides
together relevant
Promoting IPM, organic farming and
stakeholders
other biodiversity-friendly crop
management systems
Pesticide Industry

Producing and marketing pesticides

Developing new products with an
of products, including the
adequate efficacy but a better
readability of pesticide
agronomic, human health and/or
container labels
environmental profile



Increasing knowledge transfer
Promoting IPM practices and
Adopting product stewardship, e.g. by
optimal mitigation measures
optimizing safe storage at retailors
to protect biodiversity
and financially supporting the

Promoting safe use training
collection and management of unused

Supporting research on the
pesticides and related containers
relation between pesticide
use and biodiversity
Pesticide retailers

(e.g. local shops)

Storing and local marketing of

Training of pesticide retailer
pesticides
staff to promote the safe use
Informing (smallholder) farmers on
of less hazardous pesticides
product properties and application

Promoting the collection of
Farmer organizations
techniques
pesticide containers and

Storing used pesticide containers
remnants

Improving accessibility to information


Supporting and training
on safe use of pesticides and
farmers to implement
alternative production methods
biodiversity-friendly crop
Supporting local farmers in optimising
protection practices
their income

Enforcing the availability of
less hazardous pesticides in
local retailors
Commercial farmers



Selecting and conducting

Safe-use training

Implementing certification
economically profitable, legally
systems (for environmentally-
compliant crop protection programs
friendly produced products)
Employing and training personnel for

Participating in training for
the application of pesticides
safe use of pesticides and
Analysing pesticide-related trade
biodiversity-friendly crop
problems
management practices

Selecting pesticides with
smaller ecological footprints
Smallholder farmers

Selecting and conducting

Optimizing IPM practices

Participating in training for
economically profitable, legally
safe use of pesticides and
compliant crop protection programs
biodiversity-friendly crop
management practices

Selecting pesticides with
smaller ecological footprints
Financial Institutions
(World Bank; private

Conceding loans to producers

Conditioning loan concession
banks; governmental
to farmers to adoption of
financing institutions)
biodiversity-friendly land
management practices
Agricultural marketing

Implementing certification systems

Enforcing certification
organizations
(for environmentally friendly produced
systems (for environmentally
(e.g. super market
products)
friendly produced products)
chains; importers of

food commodities)
Consumers
Informing consumers on production
methods and product quality

Choosing food (originating from

Rewarding producers that
conventional, certified or organic
implement biodiversity friendly
production systems)
crop management practises
by consuming their products
Academia

Designing cropping systems, e.g.


Identifying the region-specific
developing crop rotation and pest
features that affect local
management programmes that result
biodiversity conservation
in profitable crop yields while
practices
minimizing environmental impacts



Promoting multi-disciplinary
Developing science-based indicators
research alliances
for sustainable agriculture
(agriculture; nature
Underpinning the science behind
conservation) with national
pesticide registration procedures and
and international scientists to
effective IPM programs
improve the conservation of
Conducting research and education
biodiversity
forming the scientific and

Developing mechanistically-
technological basis of sustainable
derived decision tools that
agriculture
integrates agriculture and
conservation biology

Identifying the stakeholders,
institutions, driving forces and
their interactions to optimize
the transition to a sustainable
economy
LITERATURE CITED
[1] Agrofit. Sistema de Agrotóxicos Fitossanitários. See:
http://extranet.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (accessed 30
January 2013).
[2] OECD [The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] 2001 OECD
guideline for testing of chemicals 423. See:
http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/SuppDocs/FedDocs/OECD/OECD_GL423.pdf
[3] PPDB Pesticide Properties Database. See:
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/index2.htm (accessed 3 September 2012).