Tanzania Multi Stakeholder Map - WebNG

DESIGNING AN ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
PROGRAMME Cont’d
• The ecology of the area - identification of
affected species - ecological importance
(keystone, significant, less significant), population
status (i.e. endemic, rare, or protected), cultural
importance (Flagship, valued, not significant to any
cultural group), Economic importance (Imperative,
High, Moderate, Low)
• The ecotoxicology of the pesticide in the
same or similar type of environments –
background ecotoxicology studies
• The magnitude of exposure - dose/rate, duration,
timing
7
8
Factors for consideration in assessing the need to monitor potential
tial
impacts on wildlife
Population Status Ecological
Cultural Economic Potential
importance Importance Importance Impact
Critically endangered
facing an extremely high
risk of extinction in the
wild in the immediate
future
Endangered facing high
risk of extinction in the
wild in the near future
Vulnerable likely to move
into endangered category
in the medium term future
Near – threatened close
to qualifying as
vulnerable
Rare not at present
vulnerable, but with small
world populations,
therefore at risk
Unthreatened, at no risk of
extension in the medium term
Keystone species
important to the
ecology of many
other species OR
crucial to key eco
processes
Significant, important
to a number of other
species OR to eco
functions
Unimportant, less
significant to species
composition of
habitat & to
ecological functions
Unknown
Flagship -
species which
are well known
& of high
cultural values
Valuedimportant
to
some aspects
of human
culture
Unimportant –
of no
significance to
any major
group
Imperative
High
Moderate
Low
Extinction
Population decline
Adult deaths,
Immature Deaths,
Breeding Failure
Health impairment,
Growth retarded
Physiological
charge,
Behavioural
change
Risk of acute toxicity: 0 = No risk, + = Low risk, ++ = Moderate risk, +++ = High risk, ? = Unknown risks
Pesticide
Group
Organochlori
ne
Organophos
phate
Carbamate
Pyrethroid
IGR –Insect
growth
regulator
Phenyl
pyrazoles
Biologicals
Herbicide
Fungicide
Aquatic
Invertebra
tes
+ + +
+ + - + + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ - + + +
0 - + +
0 - +
Amphibians/
Chelonians
+ +
0 - + + +
+ - + + +
+ + +
0
++ +
0
+ - + + +
+ - + +
Fish
+ +
+ - + + +
+ + +
+ + +
+
+ + - + +
+
0
0 - + + +
+ - + + +
Soil
Processe
s
+ +
+ + - + + +
0 - + +
+ + - + + +
+ - + + +
+ + - + + +
+ - + +
+ - + +
+ - + +
Terrestrial
invertebrates
+ - + + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ - + + +
+ - + + +
+ + - + + +
0 - + +
0 - + +
Lizards
+ +
0 - + + +
?
+ + - + +
+
0?
+ + +
0
0 - + +
?
Birds
+ - + +
+ - + + +
0 - + + +
0 - +
0
0 - + + +
0
0 - +
0 - + +
Mammals
+ +
+ - + + +
+ - + + +
+
0
+ +
0
0 - +
0 - +
Abundant widespread &
common
9
10
Risk by application method
Application
method
Aerial –
exhaust
Aquati
c
invert
ebrate
+ + +
Amphibian
s /
Chelonians
+ + +
Fish
+ + +
Soil
process
es
+ +
Terrestrial
invertebrate
s
+ + +
Reptile
s
+ + +
Birds
+ + +
Mammal
s
+ + +
DESIGNING AN ECOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMME Cont’d
Aerial – ULV
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
FORMULATING THE HYPOTHESIS
Ground
conventional
Ground – ULV
Fogging
Dusting
Baiting
Granules
+ +
+
+ +
+
+
0 - +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ - + + +
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+
0 - +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ - + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
Formulate the hypothesis based on knowledge
obtained via desk review – it should state the
possible (perceived) impact of the pesticide(s). This
hypothesis should then be turned ‘upside down’ to
produce the ‘null hypothesis’ . Before planning the
fieldwork double check your analysis of the
problem, this may save you from collecting useless
data.
Dips/pour-ons
+
0
0
+ +
+ +
0
0 - + +
0 - +
11
12
147