Search

A conceptual framework was developed by a working group of the Scientific Committee of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to guide risk assessors and risk managers on when and how to integrate ecological recovery and resilience assessments into environmental risk assessments (ERA). In this commentary we advocate that a systems approach is required to integrate the diversity of ecosystem services (ES) providing units, environmental factors, scales, and stressor-related responses necessary to address the context dependency of recovery and resilience in agricultural landscapes. A future challenge in the resilience assessment remains to identify the relevant bundles of ecosystem services provided by different types of agroecosystem that need to be assessed in concert. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:586-591. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)., (© 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).)

This article presents a case study demonstrating the application of 3 individual-based, spatially explicit population models (IBMs, also known as agent-based models) in ecological risk assessments to predict long-term effects of a pesticide to populations of small mammals. The 3 IBMs each used a hypothetical fungicide (FungicideX) in different scenarios: spraying in cereals (common vole, Microtus arvalis), spraying in orchards (field vole, Microtus agrestis), and cereal seed treatment (wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus). Each scenario used existing model landscapes, which differed greatly in size and structural complexity. The toxicological profile of FungicideX was defined so that the deterministic long-term first tier risk assessment would result in high risk to small mammals, thus providing the opportunity to use the IBMs for risk assessment refinement (i.e., higher tier risk assessment). Despite differing internal model design and scenarios, results indicated in all 3 cases low population sensitivity unless FungicideX was applied at very high (×10) rates. Recovery from local population impacts was generally fast. Only when patch extinctions occured in simulations of intentionally high acute toxic effects, recovery periods, then determined by recolonization, were of any concern. Conclusions include recommendations for the most important input considerations, including the selection of exposure levels, duration of simulations, statistically robust number of replicates, and endpoints to report. However, further investigation and agreement are needed to develop recommendations for landscape attributes such as size, structure, and crop rotation to define appropriate regulatory risk assessment scenarios. Overall, the application of IBMs provides multiple advantages to higher tier ecological risk assessments for small mammals, including consistent and transparent direct links to specific protection goals, and the consideration of more realistic scenarios., (© 2015 SETAC.)

Focal species have been defined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as real species that represent others in a crop resulting from their potential higher level of exposure to pesticides. As such they are the most appropriate species for refining estimates of exposure further, through, for example, radio tracking and dietary studies. Plant protection product manufacturers collectively commissioned many studies in Europe, according to the EFSA guidelines, to identify focal species in different crops that may be used in risk assessments for spray applications of pesticides. Using frequency of occurrence in crops and risk-based criteria for exposure, all studies have been reviewed to identify if possible at least 1 focal species per feeding guild, per crop in the new registration zones for southern and central Europe. Some focal species repeatedly appeared across a wide range of arable or tree crops but not both, demonstrating broad adaptation to these 2 different crop structures. Many have widespread distributions, for example, 15 of the focal species have a distribution covering all agricultural regions of Europe (northern, central, and southern zones). Three species, corn bunting, serin, and tree sparrow, are restricted to the central and southern zones, whereas another 4 species, Sardinian and fan-tailed warbler, and crested and short-toed lark, are essentially restricted to the southern zone. The authors consider the focal species identified as suitable for risk assessment in Europe at the zonal level and for further refinement of exposure through studies, such as radio tracking or diet analysis, if necessary., (© 2013 SETAC.)

First-tier risk assessment for pesticides is often based on the quotient of the toxicity divided by the predicted environmental concentration or dose. This ratio is compared to a fixed assessment factor (AF) to decide whether the pesticide is to be allowed on the market or whether further research is needed. Often, a high value (e.g., the 90th percentile) is assumed for the predicted environmental concentration, and the lowest available value is chosen to represent toxicity; yet, the real level of protection is not known. Therefore, it is also not known whether the first tier is conservative enough or too conservative. By using 2 large toxicity databases and assuming a log-logistic species sensitivity distribution for each pesticide, the percent of species not covered by the AF is estimated in the scenario, where exposure is at the maximum level allowable in the first tier. In the case of crustaceans, the median estimate of the fraction of species not covered by the AF of 100 in the first-tier scenario is 3.4%, on average, for 72 pesticides. In other words, on average, 3.4% of the crustacean species will be exposed above their median lethal concentration (LC50) and median lethal dose (LD50) value in 10% of receiving surface waters that receive the maximum allowable exposure to an individual pesticide. The estimated level of protection varies widely between pesticides. For 10% of the pesticides, the estimated fraction of species not covered is ≥10% (maximum=41.4%). For 28% of the pesticides, 99.9% of the species will have the assumed level of protection. For birds, the median estimate of the fraction of species exposed above their median lethal dose for the first-tier scenario (AF=10) is 3.0% on average, when the AF is applied to the lower of the toxicity values for the 2 standard test species. For 11% of the pesticides, the median estimate is ≥10% (maximum=15.7%). When the AF is applied instead to the geometric mean of the toxicity values for the 2 standard species, the median estimate of the fraction of species not covered by the AF is increased to 7.4% on average; for 31% of the pesticides, this fraction is ≥10% (maximum=33.4%). This variation in the level of protection should be considered when defining the assumptions, assessment factors, and decision criteria in regulatory risk assessment., (Copyright © 2011 SETAC.)