Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Laboratory tests of Metarhizium anisopliae var acridum Driver & Milner, at a dose of 1.3 x 10(6) conidia ml-1, had no adverse effects on nymphs of mayfly, Ulmerophlebia sp or 8-week-old fry of the rainbow fish, Melanotaenia duboulayi Castelnau. This dose was toxic to the cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia Richard, causing 100% mortality in 48 h. When this test was repeated at doses of up to 6.7 x 10(3) conidia ml-1, there was only 5% mortality after 192 h. Spraying of artificial water sources with a very high dose of the fungus as an aqueous spray resulted in 80-130 conidia ml-1 at 15 cm depth in the first 24 h after spraying. The conidia rapidly settled out and were absent from the top 15 cm layer of water after about 50 h. A similar experiment using the oil formulation as used in field control resulted in a 2- to 20-fold lower level of conidia in the water. Finally, sampling actual water sources in spray areas revealed a very low level of contamination of the water, with a maximum mean level of 29 conidia ml-1 in the first 24 h after treatment. Thus the level of conidia likely to enter water during control campaigns is a small fraction of that required to kill cladocerans, the only sensitive non-target organism tested. It is concluded that the biopesticide is very unlikely to pose any hazard to aquatic organisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milner et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: