DOCSLIB.ORG

Rotenone Review Advisory Committee Final Report and Recommendations to the Arizona Game and Fish Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rotenone Review Advisory Committee Final Report and Recommendations to the Arizona Game and Fish Department ROTENONE REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT December 31, 2011 Committee Chair: Herb Guenther Committee Co-Chair: Mark Schaefer, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Committee Members: Ben Alteneder, Arizona Wildlife Federation; Philip Bashaw, Arizona Farm Bureau; Brian Davidson, Environmental Protection Agency; Philip Fernandez, Glendale Community College and Zane Grey Chapter Trout Unlimited; Mike Fulton, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Jeff Gray, R and R Partners; Rodney Held, Arizona Department of Water Resources; Don Herrington, Arizona Department of Health Services; Hugh Holub (Deceased), Patagonia; Russ Jones, Arizona State Representative; Doug Kupel, City of Phoenix; Elroy Masters, Bureau of Land Management; John Nelson, Arizona State Senator; Charles Paradzick, Salt River Project; Jack Peterson, Arizona Department of Agriculture; Frank Pratt, Arizona State Representative; Dennis Rule, Central Arizona Project; Amanda Reeve, Arizona State Representative; Larry Riley, Arizona Game and Fish Department; Don Shooter, Arizona State Senator; Robert Shuler, Shuler Law Firm; Steve Spangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and Earl Stewart, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 Final Recommendations Approved by the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee ................. 5 CHAPTER 1. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, INTERNAL POLICY, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SUBCOMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 8 Subcommittee Charge ................................................................................................................. 8 The Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................... 9 Improving the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Current Process ................................... 11 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendations to the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee........................................... 21 CHAPTER 2. HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Part 1. Human Health Impacts from the Use of Rotenone as a Piscicide .................................... 23 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 23 Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Assessments and Reregistration for Rotenone ....... 26 The Rotenone Model for Parkinson’s Disease and Web of Science Summary ........................ 33 Parkinson’s Disease and Occupational Exposure ..................................................................... 36 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 39 Part 2. Environmental Fate of Rotenone, Impacts to Non-Target Organisms, and Use of Potassium Permanganate .............................................................................................................. 42 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 42 Environmental Fate of Rotenone .............................................................................................. 44 Effects to Non-Target Organisms from Rotenone Exposure .................................................... 51 Use of Potassium Permanganate to Neutralize Rotenone ......................................................... 55 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 56 Recommendations to the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee........................................... 60 CHAPTER 3. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES SUBCOMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 62 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 62 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 62 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 63 Fisheries Management Objectives ............................................................................................ 64 Fish Removal Tools and Techniques ........................................................................................ 65 2 Potential (Future) Alternatives .................................................................................................. 72 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 74 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 74 Recommendations to the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee........................................... 76 CHAPTER 4. RECREATION, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL IMPACTS FINAL REPORT .... 77 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 77 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 78 Recreation and Economic Impacts............................................................................................ 79 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 86 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 87 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 87 Recommendations to the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee........................................... 88 APPENDIX A. PISCICIDE USE IN ARIZONA ........................................................................ 89 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 89 Fisheries Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 89 Applicable Laws and Regulations ............................................................................................ 89 Preliminary Treatment Plan and Implementation ..................................................................... 92 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX B. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ............................................................ 96 APPENDIX C. ROTENONE REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT AND FINAL CHARTER .................................................................................................................................. 105 APPENDIX D. ROTENONE LITERATURE CITED AND/OR REVIEWED ....................... 111 3 In Memory of Hugh Holub Hugh Holub was an active member of the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee until his untimely death in September of 2011. He spent numerous hours reviewing studies on rotenone, communicating with experts, candidly clarifying the concerns of people in Southern Arizona and sharing that information with the Committee. Throughout his adult life he was the voice of reason for issues in “Baja Arizona”, using humor and satire to emphasize his position. He will be sorely missed. 4 Executive Summary The use of rotenone as a piscicide in Arizona prompted concerns over the potential human health and ecological impacts that may result from rotenone exposure, and resulted in proposed state legislation (50th Legislature, 1st regular session in 2010: 2010: S.B. 1294; H.B. 2114) that would have significantly limited the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) ability to use rotenone in the future. In June 2011, the AGFD Director authorized the Rotenone Review Advisory Committee (Committee) to advise and make recommendations to the Director, and through him the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, with respect to matters within the areas of its members experience and expertise regarding the use of rotenone and other piscicides for Arizona fisheries and aquatic wildlife management. In that regard, the Committee’s purpose was to review reports and research gathered by the Department and Rotenone Review Advisory Committee’s - organized Subcommittees, to gather input from other experts contacted by the Committee and Subcommittees, and to provide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EVALUATION of BOTANICAL PISCICIDES on NILE TILAPIA Oreochromis Niloticus L
    EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL PISCICIDES ON NILE TILAPIA Oreochromis niloticus L. AND MOSQUITO FISH Gambusia affinis BAIRD AND GIRARD Arsenia G. Cagauan, Marjorie C. Galaites and Lorenz J. Fajardo College of Fisheries and Freshwater Aquaculture Center Central Luzon State University, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 3120, Philippines Abstract The study assessed the piscicidal activity of ten locally available plants to two freshwater fishes; Nile tilapia (O. niloticus L.) and mosquito fish (G. affinis Baird and Girard). It focused on the laboratory determination of lethal concentrations (LC50 and LC100) through a static bioassay test. The ten plants tested were ampalaya Momordica charantia, adelfa Nerium indicum, agave Agave cantala, kalamansi Citrus mitis, lagundi Vitex negundo, madre de cacao Gliricidia sepium, makabuhai Tinosphora rhumpii, neem Azadirachta indica, physic nut Jatropa curcas and sambong Blumea balsamifera. Based on the 24-hour lethal concentration (LC100), the plants with the strongest piscicidal activity to Nile tilapia and mosquito fish were makabuhai and kalamansi, respectively. The toxicity to Nile tilapia of the ten plants arranged in the order of decreasing toxicity is as follows: makabuhai (0.82 ml l-1) > adelfa (1.06 ml l-1) > ampalaya (2.59 ml l-1) > kalamansi (5 ml l-1) > neem (12.4 ml l-1) > physic nut (26.67 ml l-1) > lagundi (31.5 ml l-1) > agave (74.29 ml l-1) > madre de cacao (90 ml l-1) > sambong (125.71 ml l-1). For mosquito fish, the toxicity of the ten plants arranged in the order of decreasing toxicity is as follows: kalamansi (3 ml l-1) > makabuhai (6 ml l-1) > adelfa (7.87 ml l-1) > neem (8.31 ml l-1) > ampalaya (13.5 ml l-1) > lagundi (50 ml l-1) > sambong (80 ml l-1) > physic nut (81.67 ml l-1) > agave (102.08 ml l-1) >madre de cacao (117.5 ml l-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial Toxicity of Triclosan on Mammalian Cells
    Toxicology Reports 2 (2015) 624–637 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Toxicology Reports j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/toxrep Mitochondrial toxicity of triclosan on mammalian cells a,∗,1 a,1 b,1 c Charmaine Ajao , Maria A. Andersson , Vera V. Teplova , Szabolcs Nagy , d e f g Carl G. Gahmberg , Leif C. Andersson , Maria Hautaniemi , Balazs Kakasi , h a Merja Roivainen , Mirja Salkinoja-Salonen a Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, Haartman Institute, University of Helsinki, POB 56, FI-00014, Finland b Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics, RAS, Puschino, Moscow Region, Russia c Department of Animal Science and Animal Husbandry, University of Pannonia, Georgikon Faculty, Deak F. u.,16, H8360 Keszthely, Hungary d Dept. of Bio- and Environmental Sciences, Haartman Institute, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland e Dept. of Pathology, Haartman Institute, University of Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland f Finnish Food Safety Authority (EVIRA), Research and Laboratory Department, Veterinary Virology Research Unit, Mustialankatu 3, FI 00790 Helsinki, Finland g Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Pannonia, Egyetem u. 10, H-8200 Veszprem, Hungary h National Institute for Health and Welfare, Department of Virology, Mannerheimintie 166, 00300 Helsinki, Finland a r t a b i c s t l r e i n f o a c t Article history: Effects of triclosan (5-chloro-2 -(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenol) on mammalian cells were Received 28 January 2015 investigated using human peripheral blood mono nuclear cells (PBMC), keratinocytes Received in revised form 29 March 2015 (HaCaT), porcine spermatozoa and kidney tubular epithelial cells (PK-15), murine pan- Accepted 30 March 2015 creatic islets (MIN-6) and neuroblastoma cells (MNA) as targets.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H. Lake Davis, CA, Rotenone Application
    Appendix H. Lake Davis, CA, Rotenone Application The information contained in this summary was provided by the California Department of Fish and Game (California Department of Fish and Game, 1999). In October 1997, the California Department of Fish and Game treated Lake Davis in Plumas County, California, with rotenone to eliminate introduced Northern pike (Esox lucius) that was considered a predatory fish, potentially threatening indigenous salmonids and other threatened and endangered fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (personal communication: Brian Finlayson, California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Located at an elevation of 5,775 ft above mean sea level, Lake Davis is a 4,026 acre (1,619 ha) impoundment of Big Grizzly Creek, a tributary to the Middle Fork Feather River. The reservoir has a maximum depth of 108 ft (33 m) and a mean depth of 20.5 ft (6.3 m) (Lee, 2001). The reservoir is classified as meso-eutrophic based on growing season inorganic nitrogen concentration (Lee, 2001). From October 15 - 16, 1997, the Lake Davis and its tributaries (Grizzly, Freeman and Cow Creeks) were treated with two formulations of rotenone, i.e., 64,000 lbs of powdered ProNoxfish (7.1% a.i.; EPA Registration No. 432-829) and 15,785 gallons of a synergized liquid formulation Nusyn-Noxfish (2.5% a.i.; EPA Registration No. 432-550) to maintain a desired treatment concentration. The liquid formulation used piperonyl butoxide as a synergist. Rotenone concentrations were measured within and surrounding the treatment area. The data suggest that initially rotenone was not equally distributed through the water column; this is consistent with the reservoir having an average depth of roughly 20 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • ERP Directed Actions Northern Pike Containment System at Lake Davis
    ERP DIRECTED ACTIONS Northern Pike Containment System at Lake Davis Reference Ecosystem Restoration Program Prop 50 Bond Funded Project No. DFG-05#### Prepared by: Leslie Pierce Department of Water Resources Fish Passage Improvement Program 901 P Street, P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento CA 94236 (916) 651-9630 CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM Ecosystem Restoration Program Directed Action Proposal PART A. Cover Sheet A1. Proposal Title: Northern Pike Containment System at Lake Davis A2. Lead Applicant or Organization: Contact Name: Leslie Pierce Address: Department of Water Resources (DWR), Fish Passage Improvement Program, P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento CA 94236 Phone Number: (916) 651-9630 Fax Number: (916) 651-9607 E-mail: [email protected] A3. Project Manager or Principal Investigator Contact Name: David Panec Agency/Organization Affiliation: DWR, Operations and Maintenance Address: P. O. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236 Phone Number: (916) 653-0772 Fax Number: (916) 654-5554 E-mail: [email protected] A4. Cost of Project: Request for new ERP Prop 50 funding: $2,000,000. Full project cost is $4.26 million. A5. Cost Share Partners: 1) Fish Passage Improvement Program Total Cost Share: $260,000 Department of Water Resources Type: Cash Leslie Pierce, Senior Environmental Scientist P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento CA 94236-0001 Phone: (916) 651-9630 Fax: (916) 651-9607 [email protected] 2) Division of Operations and Maintenance Total Cost Share: $2.0 million Oroville Field Division Type: Cash Department of Water Resources Maury Miller 460 Glen Drive Oroville, CA. 95966 Phone: (530) 534-2425 Fax: (530) 534-2420 [email protected] Page 2 of 22 CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM Ecosystem Restoration Program Directed Action Proposal A6.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations
    FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations .........................................................................................3 Region 1 Reports: Northwest Montana ..........................................................................................................5 Region 2 Reports: West Central Montana .....................................................................................................17 Region 3 Reports: Southwest Montana ........................................................................................................34 Region 4 Reports: North Central Montana ...................................................................................................44 Region 5 Reports: South Central Montana ...................................................................................................65 Region 6 Reports: Northeast Montana ........................................................................................................73 Region 7 Reports: Southeast Montana .........................................................................................................86 Montana Fish Hatchery Reports: .......................................................................................................................92 Murray Springs Trout Hatchery ...................................................................................................................92 Washoe Park Trout Hatchery .......................................................................................................................93
    [Show full text]
  • 1998-Vol24-No1web.Pdf
    Voices .-m.*r +- s I s IT down to write an address itself solely to fly fishing. We introduction to our Winter Mary have excerpted two chapters here, "An- A1998 issue, I am fresh from a Orvis Mar- gling as a Medicine" and "Capture of conversation with Richard C. Hoff- bury flies in our col- My First Salmon." I think you'll appre- mann in which we reviewed the page lection. Betts, who rescued ciate both Dawson's voice and counsel. proofs of his book excerpt (see page 2). the flies when he was cleaning out Back to Baja. I was lucky enough to This conversation was one of several the attic of Orvis's old factory building be among the 150 or so who attended we've had in the course of the last back in the mid-196os, has his own his- the second International Festival of month or so, and I enjoyed it thor- torical attachment to the collection of Women Fly Fishers there from Novem- oughly. models used for the color plates in her ber 5 to lo, 1997. I was there represent- One of the most satisfying aspects of 1892 book. You can hear a bit of his ing the Museum as a member of a pub- this job is beginning to know the au- voice in "Some of Marbury's Favorite lications panel led by former editor thors-dealing not only with the voice Bass and Fancy Lake Flies." Margot Page. Another member was of a written work, but also with the And Jiirgen Preylowski, that fabu- Lyla Foggia, an author whose book, author's more personal voice through lous designer and art director from Reel Women: The World of Women Who letters and phone conversations.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Biorational and Natural Products for Vegetable Crop Management in Commercial Market Gardens and Home Gardens
    Report to the Ohio IPM Program on a Vegetable Team Project funded by the Ohio IPM Block Grant Program, 2005 Title: Evaluation of biorational and natural products for vegetable crop management in commercial market gardens and home gardens Investigators: Celeste Welty (entomologist), Sally Miller (plant pathologist), Doug Doohan (weed scientist); Mark Bennett, Matt Kleinhenz, Bob Precheur (horticulturists). Background: The insect pests and diseases that affect vegetable crops are the same whether grown on large farms for commercial production or on small diversified farms or home gardens, but the management tactics preferred by growers are often different for the different scale operations. Many market gardeners prefer to avoid using conventional pesticides because of concern about human safety and environmental contamination. During the past few years, many biorational crop protection products have become available. While it is known that biorational products are safer to humans than conventional pesticides, it is not known whether they are effective in controlling the target pests that they claim to control. In addition to products for insect and disease control, there are many products that promote plant growth, such as microbial soil inoculants. There is little to no unbiased data available on efficacy of these products. This deficit is a limiting factor in formulating up-to-date extension recommendations for market gardens and home gardens. This project was an important first step in the development of a set of recommended garden IPM tactics that will include cultural controls to prevent or delay pest problems, along with biological controls and selective chemical controls. Objective: To evaluate efficacy of biorational products that are available for vegetable crop management, in comparison with standard conventional materials.
    [Show full text]
  • FWP Fish Removal Projects Fish and Wildlife Commission Work Session May 18, 2021
    FWP Fish Removal Projects Fish and Wildlife Commission Work Session May 18, 2021 Fish removal is a common method used to manipulate population densities and species composition of a fishery. Fish removals may be used to reduce competition between species, remove undesirable or invasive species, protect species with elevated conservation risk, or to improve the quality of a sport fishery. Removals are often intended to restore or reintroduce native fish to a drainage or to improve an existing fishery. Most removal projects aspire to improve fishing opportunity by reintroducing species better suited for available habitats or by reducing competition with other species. Tools commonly used by FWP for removal include angling regulations, netting and electrofishing, dewatering, construction of barriers, and use of piscicides/chemicals (Table 1). These are described in more detail below. Table 1: Comparison of fish control or removal methods commonly used for fisheries management. Control Method Advantages Disadvantages Typical Use Angling regulations Allows harvest of Slow, angling pressure often Used where total removal not fish, and less fish inadequate for significant possible or necessary waste change, and many species/sizes not vulnerable Netting and Can allow for Unlikely to eradicate fish and Used in large lakes or rivers where Electrofishing selective removal could harm non-targeted species chemicals not feasible, small streams through bycatch to reduce species competition, or where sensitive/endangered species must be protected Dewatering
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Triclosan on the Functioning of Liver Mitochondria And
    The Journal of Membrane Biology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00232-019-00099-w Efect of Triclosan on the Functioning of Liver Mitochondria and Permeability of Erythrocyte Membranes of Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771)) Mikhail V. Dubinin1 · Kirill S. Tenkov1 · Anton O. Svinin1 · Victor N. Samartsev1 · Konstantin N. Belosludtsev1,2 Received: 28 June 2019 / Accepted: 24 September 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract The paper examines the efects of the antimicrobial agent triclosan on the functioning of the liver mitochondria of marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771)). It was established that triclosan inhibits DNP-stimulated respiration of mito- chondria and decreases respiratory control ratio. In addition, triclosan causes the collapse of the mitochondrial membrane potential on both types of substrates. Such an action of triclosan can be mediated by both a protonophore efect and suppres- sion of the activity of complex II and combined activity of complexes II + III (and, to a lesser degree, the combined activity of complexes I + III) of the mitochondrial respiratory chain. It is shown that high concentrations of triclosan enhance the production of hydrogen peroxide during the oxidation of substrates of the complex I by mitochondria, and decrease it in the case of succinate oxidation. It is found that triclosan is able to induce nonspecifc permeability of the liver mitochondria of these amphibians, as well as the plasma membrane of erythrocytes. The possible mechanisms of triclosan efect on marsh frog liver mitochondria and red blood cells are discussed. Graphic Abstract Keywords Triclosan · Toxicology · Mitochondria · Pelophylax ridibundus · Erythrocytes · Membrane permeability Abbreviations TCS Triclosan CsA Cyclosporine * Mikhail V.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR)
    Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) Name of Process: Status: Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) A Commercial system operated in Australia for more than 5 years, treating Vendor: more than 2,500 tons of PCB’s, DDT and other POPs. In 1999 a full-scale test ELI Eco Logic International Inc. on HCB was conducted using the commercial plant. Web site: http://www.ecologic.ca Eco Logic’s partners in Japan have recently built a semi-mobile GPCR plant for Applicable Pesticides and related the treatment of PCB wastes, which will be operational in 2003. POPs wastes: Pesticides such as Hexachlorobenzene, In combination with Foster Wheeler and Kvaerner the company is DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, HCB’s, DDT, PCB’s, participating at present in the ACWA (Army Chemical Weapons Assessment) dioxins and furans and other POPs. Program for the destruction of chemical warfare agents. Eco Logic has partnered with Torftech Inc. for the treatment of soils and sediments at rates of up to 20 tons per hour. Eco Logic has also been selected by UNIDO for a pilot project for treatment of 1000 tons of PCB wastes in Slovakia. Additional approvals received: -for PCB and dioxin waste in Japan -for PCB’s TSCA permit in USA -for PCB’s and other toxic compounds in the Province of Ontario (Canada) Technology description: Eco Logic’s GPCR technology involves the gas-phase chemical reduction of organic compounds by hydrogen at a temperature of 850°C or higher. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as HCB, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) and other POPs, are chemically reduced to methane and hydrogen chloride (HCl).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX C Use of Piscicides and Neutralization Compounds
    APPENDIX C Use of Piscicides and Neutralization Compounds Historic Use of Piscicides to Manage Fisheries Fisheries managers rely on a variety of tools to manage and assess fish populations. Historically, these have included the use of piscicides. Two piscicides, rotenone and antimycin A, are currently registered by EPA for general use in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). By law, the EPA is authorized to register a pesticide only if it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Originally, piscicides were mainly used to control out-of-balance or undesirable fish populations so that sport fish could be stocked for recreational purposes. Today, antimycin and rotenone are used in fisheries management for a variety of purposes, including (Finlayson et al. 2000): • Eradication of nonnative fish, • Restoration of threatened and endangered fish, • Support of recreational fisheries by controlling undesirable fish, • Eradication of fish to control disease, • Quantification of populations of aquatic organisms, • Eradication of competing fish in rearing facilities or ponds prior to restocking. Although physical removal methods (e.g., nets, traps, seines, electrofishing, dewatering, and combinations of physical control techniques) are available for reducing or controlling fish communities, they are generally incapable of eradicating fish (Finlayson et al. 2000). Meronek et al. (1996) review of fish control projects found that success rates for physical removal methods ranged from 33 percent to 57 percent. In most streams, only piscicide applications or complete dewatering can eradicate entire populations of undesirable fish (Schnick 1974). Rotenone Rotenone has been used in the United States to manage fish populations since the 1930s and is the piscicide of choice for application in ponds and lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity Evaluation of Water Extract Stem Barks of Balanites Aegyptiaca on Adults of Three Different Fish Species
    Vol. 11(2), pp. 9-15, February 2019 DOI: 10.5897/JTEHS2018.0426 Article Number: CC6770C60069 ISSN: 2006-9820 Copyright ©2019 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/JTEHS Health Sciences Full Length Research Paper Acute toxicity evaluation of water extract stem barks of Balanites aegyptiaca on adults of three different fish species Alamrew Eyayu1,2* and Abebe Getahun2 1Department of Biology, College of Natural Sciences, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, P. O. Box 445, Ethiopia. 2Department of Zoological Sciences, Addis Ababa University, P. O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Received 17 December, 2018: Accepted 7 January, 2019 A 96 h static toxicity bioassay was carried out to examine fish responses and to determine the median lethal concentration (LC50) of Balanites aegyptiaca stem bark extract on adults of Brycinus nurse, Labeobarbus bynni and Labeobarbus intermedius. Experimental fish were exposed to piscicide plant extract of 0.0 (control), 15.0, 17.5, 20.0, 22.5, and 25.0 mgL-1. Fish exposed to these extracts except the control showed symptoms of toxicity including darting, agitated swimming, air gulping, loss of sensitivity and knockdown before death. These responses were much frequent and faster in L. bynni -1 and L. intermedius. The 96 h LC50 values for the different test fishes were 18.99, 20.72 and 20.72 mg L for L. bynni, L. intermedius and B. nurse, respectively. Based on the present investigation, we can conclude that the application of B. aegyptiaca extract causes lethal toxic effects on different fishes even at low concentrations and hence, indiscriminate use of the plant for fishing should be discouraged and regulated in order to protect fish biodiversity lose in the Alitash National Park area.
    [Show full text]