Pesticide removal from container nursery runoff in constructed wetland cells

The increased use of pesticides by container nurseries demands that practices for removal of these potential contaminants from runoff water be examined. Constructed wetlands may be designed to clean runoff water from agricultural production sites, including container nurseries. This study evaluated 14 constructed wetlands cells (1.2 by 4.9 m or 2.4 by 4.9 m, and 30 or 45 cm deep) that collected pesticide runoff from a 465-m2 gravel bed containerized nursery in Baxter, TN. One-half of the cells were vegetated with bulrush, Scirpus validus. The cells were loaded at three rates or flows of 0.240, 0.120, and 0.060 m3 d(-1). Herbicides-simazine (Princep) [2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine] and metolachlor (Pennant) [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-2-methoxy-1-methylethyl-acetamide] -were applied to the gravel portion of the container nursery at rates of 4.78 and 239 kg ha(-1), respectively, 9 July 1998, and at rates of 2.39 and 1.19 kg ha(-1), respectively, 17 May 1999. Pesticides entering the wetland and wetland cell water samples were analyzed daily to determine pesticide removal. At the slower flow rate, which corresponds to lower mass loading and greater hydraulic retention times (HRTs), a greater percentage of pesticides was removed. During the 2-yr period, cells with plants removed 82.4% metolachlor and 77.1% simazine compared with cells without plants, which removed 63.2% metolachlor and 64.3% simazine. At the lowest flow rate and mass loading, wetland cells removed 90.2% metolachlor and 83% simazine. Gravel subsurface flow constructed wetlands removed most of the pesticides in runoff water with the greatest removal occurring at lower flow rates in vegetated cells.     

Forest-Dwelling Native Amazonians and the Conservation of Biodiversity: Interests in Common or in Collision?

Although concern for biodiversity and its conservation originated in the biological sciences, with growing international interest an increasing number of interest groups are claiming standing in discussions of the best ways to conserve biodiversity. One of these groups, formed by various indigenous peoples and their advocates, has repeatedly defended its claim to standing by stating that indigenous peoples are well equipped to conserve biodiversity. These claims have had far-reaching consequences, as millions of hectares of Amazonian forest have been deeded to indigenous groups, at least partially on the reasoning that such actions would conserve biodiversity. In this paper, we bring to the attention of the community of conservation biologists a group representing 229 native Amazonian groups comprising 1.2 million people in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Colombia. In a document entitled "To the Community of Concerned Environmentalists," this group of indigenous peoples proposes a broad template for cooperation between conservation biologists and the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Basin. Following reiteration of the statement, we discuss the fact that these two groups define biodiversity and its conservation in different ways, with indigenous peoples focusing more on preservation of general habitat characteristics and exclusion of extensive habitat alteration. We conclude that the interests of conservation biologists may not be completely compatible with the agenda of indigenous peoples and their advocates but that by cooperating valuable time is being bought by both sides.