Search

Specific protection goals (SPGs) comprise an explicit expression of the environmental components that need protection and the maximum impacts that can be tolerated. SPGs are set by risk managers and are typically based on protecting populations or functions. However, the measurable endpoints available to risk managers, at least for vertebrates, are typically laboratory tests. We demonstrate, using the example of eggshell thinning in skylarks, how simulation can be used to place laboratory endpoints in context of population-level effects as an aid to setting the SPGs. We develop explanatory scenarios investigating the impact of different assumptions of eggshell thinning on skylark population size, density and distribution in 10 Danish landscapes, chosen to represent the range of typical Danish agricultural conditions. Landscape and timing of application of the pesticide were found to be the most critical factors to consider in the impact assessment. Consequently, a regulatory scenario of monoculture spring barley with an early spray treatment eliciting the eggshell thinning effect was applied using concentrations eliciting effects of zero to 100% in steps of 5%. Setting the SPGs requires balancing scientific, social and political realities. However, the provision of clear and detailed options such as those from comprehensive simulation results can inform the decision process by improving transparency and by putting the more abstract testing data into the context of real-world impacts., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of the present study was to assess whether population effects and recovery times increase when a population of a vulnerable aquatic invertebrate is exposed to concentrations of 1 or multiple pesticides. The 2 sets of pesticide combinations tested are typical for orchard and tuber crops in The Netherlands. Exposure concentrations were predicted using the FOCUS step 3 modeling framework and the Dutch drainage ditch scenario. Recovery times were assessed using the MASTEP population model. We simulated the population dynamics and pesticide effects in a Monte Carlo style by using median effective concentration values drawn from an arthropod species sensitivity distribution. In the tuber scenario, exposure to λ-cyhalothrin resulted in long-term effects, whereas exposure to the co-occurring compound fluazinam hardly resulted in (additional) effects. In the orchard scenario, 3 pesticides resulted in large effects just after exposure, but pulse exposures to these compounds did not coincide. The probabilities of effects for the single compounds added up for the combination; in contrast, the recovery times were not higher for the combination compared to those associated with exposure to the individual compounds. The conclusion from the present study's simulations is that exposure to the evaluated pesticide packages may lead to increased mortality probabilities and effect sizes of the combination, but does not lead to longer recovery times for populations with synchronized reproduction than when exposed to the individual compounds., (© 2013 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.)

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A study of the availability of pesticide-treated seed on arable fields was performed. The research was carried out in three different areas of The Netherlands (soil types ranging between sand and heavy clay) and included the following topics: drilling techniques, soil conditions, location on the field and spillage. The results show that there is a large variation among the various crops in the percentage of seed remaining on the soil surface. This is mainly caused by differences in drilling techniques and soil conditions. The percentage of surface seeds after standard drilling is approximately four times higher than after precision drilling. The best correlation for the impact of soil conditions was found for the overall measure of clod weight. Large differences in seed densities (factor of 3.5) were found between the headland and the field centre. Spillage occured in most crops investigated, with an average of two spills per field. Based on the field data it is recommended to use in the current risk assessment for birds and mammals the following percentages of seed remaining on the soil surface: 0.5% for precision drilling, 3.3% for standard drilling in spring and 9.2% for standard drilling in autumn.

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. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2011;7:459-465. © 2011 SETAC [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]