Search

During wastewater treatment, incomplete elimination of micropollutants occurs. Recently, the potential impacts of the release of some micropollutants at the scale of France have been studied. These impact calculations were incomplete due to a lack of characterization factors (CFs). In the present study, we used already developed machine learning models to complement the missing CFs. The conclusions were not modified for the impact on aquatic environment, but were mitigated for the impact on human health: the higher toxicological potential impact could be driven by a high-emitted mass, and a high number of compounds could take a significant part of the overall impact.

One current challenge in sustainable agriculture is to redesign cropping systems to reduce the use and impacts of pesticides, and by doing so protect the environment, in particular groundwater, and human health. As a large range of systems could be explored and a wide number of pesticides used, field experiments cannot be carried out to study the sustainability of each of them. Thus, the objectives of this work were (1) to measure water flows and pesticide leaching in six contrasted low input cropping systems based on sunflower-wheat rotation, oilseed rape-wheat-barley rotation, and maize monoculture, experimented for three years in three different soil and climatic conditions, and (2) to assess and to compare the ability of three pesticide fate models (MACRO, PEARL, PRZM) to simulate the observed water flows and pesticide concentrations. The systems were designed using various crop rotations, including cover crops and intercrops. The models were parameterized with generic parameter estimation routines as done for regulatory risk assessment, and a method was developed to parameterize intercrops, not represented in the models: the use of average crop factors, maximum LAI, crop height and rooting depth of the crops constituting the intercrop allowed acceptable simulations of cumulative water flows, but not their dynamic. Twelve pesticides of 70 applied were quantified in lysimeter samples (e.g. bentazone, glyphosate, S-metolachlor), and their concentrations exceeded 0.1 μg L -1 in several occasions. The performance of the models to reproduce pesticide concentrations was generally poor illustrating the great challenge and the progress needed to simulate accurately pesticide transfers into the soil. The best fits to measured data were attained using "worst-case" pesticide sorption and degradation parameters. Overall, MACRO performed better than PEARL and PRZM. The method developed to parameterize intercrops could be used for risk assessment of groundwater contamination by pesticides in low input cropping systems, but the use of the three models without any calibration is likely to underestimate pesticide leaching in several situations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The intensification of agriculture has promoted the simplification and specialization of agroecosystems, resulting in negative impacts such as decreasing landscape heterogeneity and increasing use of plant protection products (PPP), with the acceleration of PPP transfers to environmental compartments and loss in biodiversity. In this context, the present work reviews the various levers for action promoting the prevention and management of these transfers in the environment and the available modelling tools. Two main categories of levers were identified: (1) better control of the application, including the reduction of doses and of PPP dispersion during application thanks to appropriate equipment and settings, PPP formulations and consideration of meteorological conditions; (2) reduction of post-application transfers at plot scales (soil cover, low tillage, organic matter management, remediation etc. and at landscape scales using either dry (grassed strips, forest, hedgerows and ditches) or wet (ponds, mangroves and stormwater basins) buffer zones. The management of PPP residues leftover in the spray tanks (biobeds) also represents a lever for limiting point-source PPP pollution. Numerous models have been developed to simulate the transfers of PPPs at plot scales. They are scarce for landscape scales. A few are used for regulatory risk assessment. These models could still be improved, for example, if current agricultural practices (e.g. agro-ecological practices and biopesticides), and their effect on PPP transfers were better described. If operated alone, none of the levers guarantee a zero risk of PPP transfer. However, if levers are applied in a combined manner, PPP transfers could be more easily limited (agricultural practices, landscape organization etc.)., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable Consent to publish: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Plant protection products (PPP) are extensively used to protect plants against harmful organisms, but they also have unintended effects on non-target organisms, especially terrestrial invertebrates. The impact of PPP on ecosystem functions provided by these non-target invertebrates remains, however, unclear. The objectives of this article were to review PPP impacts on the ecosystem functions provided by pollinators, predators and parasitoids, and soil organisms, and to identify the factors that aggravate or mitigate PPP effects. The literature highlights that PPP alter several ecosystem functions: provision and maintenance of biodiversity, pollination, biotic interactions and habitat completeness in terrestrial ecosystems, and organic matter and soil structure dynamics. However, there are still a few studies dealing with ecosystem functions, with sometimes contradictory results, and consequences on agricultural provisioning services remain unclear. The model organisms used to assess PPP ecotoxicological effects are still limited, and should be expanded to better cover the wide functional diversity of terrestrial invertebrates. Data are lacking on PPP sublethal, transgenerational, and "cocktail" effects, and on their multitrophic consequences. In empirical assessments, studies on PPP unintended effects should consider agricultural-pedoclimatic contexts because they influence the responses of non-target organisms and associated ecosystem functions to PPP. Modeling might be a promising way to account for the complex interactions among PPP mixtures, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The placing of plant protection products (PPPs) on the market in the European Union is governed by numerous regulations. These regulations are among the most stringent in the world, however they have been the subject of criticisms especially because of the decline in biodiversity. The objectives of this work were to review (1) the functioning and actors involved in the PPP framework processes, (2) the construction of the environmental risk assessment focused on biodiversity, and (3) the suggested ways to respond to the identified limits. Both literature from social sciences and ecotoxicology were examined. Despite the protective nature of the European regulation on PPPs, the very imperfect consideration of biodiversity in the evaluation process was underlined. The main limits are the multiplicity of applicable rules, the routinization of the evaluation procedures, the lack of consideration of social data, and the lack of independence of the evaluation. Strengths of the regulation are the decision to integrate a systemic approach in the evaluation of PPPs, the development of modeling tools, and the phytopharmacovigilance systems. The avenues for improvement concern the realism of the risk assessment (species used, cocktail effects…), a greater transparency and independence in the conduct of evaluations, and the opening of the evaluation and decision-making processes to actors such as beekeepers or NGOs. Truly interdisciplinary reflections crossing the functioning of the living world, its alteration by PPPs, and how these elements question the users of PPPs would allow to specify social actions, public policies, and their regulation to better protect biodiversity., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Biocontrol solutions (macroorganisms, microorganisms, natural substances, semiochemicals) are presented as potential alternatives to conventional plant protection products (PPPs) because they are supposed to have lower impacts on ecosystems and human health. However, to ensure the sustainability of biocontrol solutions, it is necessary to document the unintended effects of their use. Thus, the objectives of this work were to review (1) the available biocontrol solutions and their regulation, (2) the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air) by biocontrol solutions, (3) the fate of biocontrol solutions in the environment, (4) their ecotoxicological impacts on biodiversity, and (5) the impacts of biocontrol solutions compared to those of conventional PPPs. Very few studies concern the presence of biocontrol solutions in the environment, their fate, and their impacts on biodiversity. The most important number of results were found for the organisms that have been used the longest, and most often from the angle of their interactions with other biocontrol agents. However, the use of living organisms (microorganisms and macroorganisms) in biocontrol brings a specific dimension compared to conventional PPPs because they can survive, multiply, move, and colonize other environments. The questioning of regulation stems from this specific dimension of the use of living organisms. Concerning natural substances, the few existing results indicate that while most of them have low ecotoxicity, others have a toxicity equivalent to or greater than that of the conventional PPPs. There are almost no result regarding semiochemicals. Knowledge of the unintended effects of biocontrol solutions has proved to be very incomplete. Research remains necessary to ensure their sustainability., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Copper-based plant protection products (PPPs) are widely used in both conventional and organic farming, and to a lesser extent for non-agricultural maintenance of gardens, greenspaces, and infrastructures. The use of copper PPPs adds to environmental contamination by this trace element. This paper aims to review the contribution of these PPPs to the contamination of soils and waters by copper in the context of France (which can be extrapolated to most of the European countries), and the resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, as well as on ecosystem functions. It was produced in the framework of a collective scientific assessment on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France. Current science shows that copper, which persists in soils, can partially transfer to adjacent aquatic environments (surface water and sediment) and ultimately to the marine environment. This widespread contamination impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functions, chiefly through its effects on phototrophic and heterotrophic microbial communities, and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Its effects on other biological groups and biotic interactions remain relatively under-documented., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, but they have raised numerous concerns regarding their effects on biodiversity. Thus, the objective of this work was to do a critical review of the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air, biota) by neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam) and of their impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are very frequently detected in soils and in freshwater, and they are also found in the air. They have only been recently monitored in coastal and marine environments, but some studies already reported the presence of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in transitional or semi-enclosed ecosystems (lagoons, bays, and estuaries). The contamination of the environment leads to the exposure and to the contamination of non-target organisms and to negative effects on biodiversity. Direct impacts of neonicotinoids are mainly reported on terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., pollinators, natural enemies, earthworms) and vertebrates (e.g., birds) and on aquatic invertebrates (e.g., arthropods). Impacts on aquatic vertebrate populations and communities, as well as on microorganisms, are less documented. In addition to their toxicity to directly exposed organisms, neonicotinoid induce indirect effects via trophic cascades as demonstrated in several species (terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates). However, more data are needed to reach firmer conclusions and to get a clearer picture of such indirect effects. Finally, we identified specific knowledge gaps that need to be filled to better understand the effects of neonicotinoids on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms, as well as on ecosystem services associated with these biotas., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Before their placing on the market, the safety of plant protection products (PPP) towards both human and animal health, and the environment has to be assessed using experimental and modelling approaches. Models are crucial tools for PPP risk assessment and some even help to avoid animal testing. This review investigated the use of modelling approaches in the ecotoxicology section of PPP active substance assessment reports prepared by the authorities and opened to consultation from 2011 to 2021 in the European Union. Seven categories of models (Structure-Activity, ToxicoKinetic, ToxicoKinetic-ToxicoDynamic, Species Sensitivity Distribution, population, community, and mixture) were searched for into the reports of 317 active substances. At least one model category was found for 44 % of the investigated active substances. The most detected models were Species Sensitivity Distribution, Structure-Activity and ToxicoKinetic for 27, 21 and 15 % of the active substances, respectively. The use of modelling was of particular importance for conventional active substances such as sulfonylurea or carbamates contrary to microorganisms and plant derived substances. This review also highlighted a strong imbalance in model usage among the biological groups considered in the European Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For example, models were more often used for aquatic than for terrestrial organisms (e.g., birds, mammals). Finally, a gap between the set of models used in reports and those existing in the literature was observed highlighting the need for the implementation of more sophisticated models into PPP regulation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Marie-France Corio-Costet reports a relationship with National Agency for Food Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety that includes: consulting or advisory, funding grants, and travel reimbursement. Philippe Berny reports a relationship with National Agency for Food Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety that includes: consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement. Philippe Berny reports a relationship with European Food Safety Authority that includes: consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A wide diversity of plant protection products (PPP) is used for crop protection leading to the contamination of soil, water, and air, which can have ecotoxicological impacts on living organisms. It is inconceivable to study the effects of each compound on each species from each compartment, experimental studies being time consuming and cost prohibitive, and animal testing having to be avoided. Therefore, numerous models are developed to assess PPP ecotoxicological effects. Our objective was to provide an overview of the modeling approaches enabling the assessment of PPP effects (including biopesticides) on the biota. Six categories of models were inventoried: (Q)SAR, DR and TKTD, population, multi-species, landscape, and mixture models. They were developed for various species (terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, primary producers, micro-organisms) belonging to diverse environmental compartments, to address different goals (e.g., species sensitivity or PPP bioaccumulation assessment, ecosystem services protection). Among them, mechanistic models are increasingly recognized by EFSA for PPP regulatory risk assessment but, to date, remain not considered in notified guidance documents. The strengths and limits of the reviewed models are discussed together with improvement avenues (multigenerational effects, multiple biotic and abiotic stressors). This review also underlines a lack of model testing by means of field data and of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Accurate and robust modeling of PPP effects and other stressors on living organisms, from their application in the field to their functional consequences on the ecosystems at different scales of time and space, would help going toward a more sustainable management of the environment. Graphical Abstract Combination of the keyword lists composing the first bibliographic query. Columns were joined together with the logical operator AND. All keyword lists are available in Supplementary Information at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5775038 (Larras et al. 2021)., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)