Search

Understanding the survival of honey bees after pesticide exposure is key for environmental risk assessment. Currently, effects on adult honey bees are assessed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standardized guidelines, such as the acute and chronic oral exposure and acute contact exposure tests. The three different tests are interpreted individually, without consideration that the same compound is investigated in the same species, which should allow for an integrative assessment. In the present study we developed, calibrated, and validated a toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic model with 17 existing data sets on acute and chronic effects for honey bees. The model is based on the generalized unified threshold model for survival (GUTS), which is able to integrate the different exposure regimes, taking into account the physiology of the honey bee: the BeeGUTS model. The model is able to accurately describe the effects over time for all three exposure routes combined within one consistent framework. The model can also be used as a validity check for toxicity values used in honey bee risk assessment and to conduct effect assessments for real-life exposure scenarios. This new integrative approach, moving from single-point estimates of toxicity and exposure to a holistic link between exposure and effect, will allow for a higher confidence of honey bee toxicity assessment in the future. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2193-2201. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

A lack of standard and internationally agreed procedures for higher‐tier risk assessment of plant protection products for bees makes coherent availability of data, their interpretation, and their use for risk assessment challenging. Focus has been given to the development of modeling approaches, which in the future could fill this gap. The BEEHAVE model, and its submodels, is the first model framework attempting to link 2 processes vital for the assessment of bee colonies: the within‐hive dynamics for honey bee colonies and bee foraging in heterogeneous and dynamic landscapes. We use empirical data from a honey bee field study to conduct a model evaluation using the control data set. Simultaneously, we are testing several model setups for the interlinkage between the within‐hive dynamics and the landscape foraging module. Overall, predictions of beehive dynamics fit observations made in the field. This result underpins the European Food Safety Authority's evaluation of the BEEHAVE model that the most important in‐hive dynamics are represented and correctly implemented. We show that starting conditions of a colony drive the simulated colony dynamics almost entirely within the first few weeks, whereas the impact is increasingly substituted by the impact of foraging activity. Common among field studies is that data availability for hive observations and landscape characterizations is focused on the proportionally short exposure phase (i.e., the phase where colony starting conditions drive the colony dynamics) in comparison to the postexposure phase that lasts several months. It is vital to redistribute experimental efforts toward more equal data aquisition throughout the experiment to assess the suitability of using BEEHAVE for the prediction of bee colony overwintering survival. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:2535–2545. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC

The first three formalisations of major mathematical proofs have heralded a new age in formalised mathematics, establishing that informal proofs at the limits of what can be understood by humans can be checked by machine. However, formalisation itself can be subject to error, and yet there is currently no accepted process in checking, or even much concern that such checks have not been performed. In this paper, we motivate why we should be concerned about correctness, and argue the need for proof auditing, to rigorously and independently check a formalisation. We discuss the issues involved in performing an audit, and propose an effective and efficient auditing process. Throughout we use the Flyspeck Project, that formalises the Kepler Conjecture proof, to illustrate our point., Journal of Formalized Reasoning, Vol 9, No 1 (2016): Special Issue: Twenty Years of the QED Manifesto.

Within the regulatory framework for authorisation of plant protection products (PPPs) (EU Directive 91/414/1991/EEC replaced by Regulation (EC) 1107/2009), higher tier risk assessments and earthworm field tests are conducted in different countries across Europe. This paper describes dominant earthworm species for regulatory and biogeographical regions in agricultural landscapes across Europe and examines regional differences in earthworm communities and densities and their respective response to a toxic reference. For the assessment of earthworm abundance and species distribution, data of untreated control plots from 30 earthworm field studies were analysed; each conducted according to the ISO 11268–3 (1999) guideline by European Crop Protection Association member companies in the context of registration of PPPs. For the evaluation of the response to PPPs under different regional and climatic conditions, the effect on earthworm abundance was assessed by comparing plots treated with toxic references with untreated control plots. Additionally, a comparative literature review was included providing an overview of earthworm species composition and densities in agricultural crops from 14 European countries. The assessment of earthworm field studies from six different European countries revealed that common earthworm species of anecic and endogeic ecological groups are present at most field sites. Dominant species groups of endogeic and anecic earthworms can be defined that are abundant in all assessed countries. These are the endogeic species Aporrectodea caliginosa, Aporrectodea rosea and Allolobophora chlorotica, and the anecic species Lumbricus terrestris (Northern and Central Europe) and Lumbricus friendi (Southern Europe). Taking into account the high variability in total earthworm abundances, it can be concluded that the variability within regions was larger than the variability between regions. Analysis of the earthworm community and data of toxic references lead to the conclusion that testing in different zones is not considered necessary.

The EU Plant Protection Product Directive 91/414/EEC recommends the EPPO/CoE Arthropod Natural Enemies Risk Assessment Scheme for guidance on how to conduct risk assessments for terrestrial non-target arthropods. This scheme is currently in the process of being revised by EPPO/ CoE. A major change will be the recommendation for the generation and use of ’Dose Response’ toxicity data instead of limit test data. In addition, the revised EPPO/CoE Non-target Arthropods Risk Assessment Scheme will replace the current arbitrary 30% threshold trigger value applied to limit test data, with a Hazard Quotient (HQ; = Ratio Application Rate/LC50 on Glass)), comparable to the successful approach adopted in the EPPO/CoE ’Honeybee Risk Assessment Scheme’. However, in order for this new approach to be implemented under 91/414/EEC, an appropriate regulatory HQ trigger value needs to be derived. Such an HQ trigger value has been established by calculating HQ values for the 2 recommended sensitive indicator species (T pyri andAphidius) for a wide range of products and validating opposite robust semi-field/field data. This validation indicated that an HQ trigger value of ≥ 12 forT pyri and ≥ 8 forAphidius spp., should be used to trigger higher-tier risk assessment and/or higher-tier testing for non-target arthropods. As these trigger values were validated with realistic semi-field/ field data they apply for both lethal and sub-lethal effects as well as single and multiple application scenarios. Due to the worst case assumptions used in this HQ validation analysis, no further uncertainty factors need to be applied for in-crop risk assessment. Whilst a small amount of uncertainty exists regarding the comparative sensitivity ofT pyri andAphidius spp. for off-crop non-target arthropod guilds of arthropods, this is balanced by the fact that the off-crop exposure assessment used in the HQ derivation, is at least an order of magnitude higher than that realistically likely in the field. This HQ approach and trigger value is an appropriate and conservative tool for tier 1 risk assessment, which should reduce the number of false positive results leading to unnecessary higher-tier testing.

Soil fumigants are used extensively in the protection of crops against parasitic nematodes and other soil borne pests. The active ingredient in Telone II soil fumigant is 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) which has a wide range of uses in Europe as a pre-plant nematocide. During the use of soil fumigants such as 1,3-D a range of non-target soil dwelling organisms has the potential to be exposed and impacted. We report here the results of a field study conducted in Italy to assess the impact of 1,3-D applications to soil-dwelling non-target organisms. This study was conducted under conditions of commercial tomato growing either without (untreated control) or with an application of 1,3-D at 224 kg a.i./hectare. Samples of arthropods and earthworms were taken before and up to 12 months after application to measure season long effects. A soil sample was taken at 4.5 months and a soil function test performed. By evaluating the effects of 1,3-D both in the Laboratory and under field conditions equivalent to commercial practices it was concluded that applications of 1,3-D would not adversely effect soil arthropods, but may have an effect on earthworms and soil microflora. These effects were, however, transient as full recovery was observed within six months of application for earthworms and 4.5 months for soil microflora. Consequently, the risk to non-target soil micro- and macro-organisms was considered acceptable according to current risk assessment guidelines within the European Union.

Two Large scale field studies have been conducted to the same design in commercial apple orchards in north and south France. Mancozeb (Dithane M-45) was applied at its post-annex I use rate of 1.6 kg a.i./ha on four occasions with a spray interval of 7 days. Reference treatments of a water treated control and toxic reference of dimethoate were also included. Studies were of randomized block design with 4 replicates (4 plots of 6 adjacent rows of 8 trees, on a surface of approximately 16 x 21 m) per treatment. Leaf and canopy dwelling arthropods were sampled before and at regular intervals after application until the end of the season. A diverse range of arthropod taxa was sampled, counted and identified which enabled for an evaluation of key taxa such as predatory mites and other beneficials but also of the whole foliar dwelling arthropod community. This two level analysis allows for a thorough investigation of both direct and indirect effects of the test item on beneficial, pest and non-target arthropods and for a state of the art evaluation at the ecological community Level using ordination techniques. The findings from the two locations were highly consistent in that mancozeb applied four times at 1.6 g a.i./ha with a 7 day spray interval caused significant but short lived reductions in predatory Phytoseiid mites of50% with rapid recovery approximately one month after application. These transient effects did not impact secondary pests such as rust mites (Eriophyoidea) and broad mites (Tarsonemidae). A wide range of arthropod taxa were investigated (229 taxa in the north and 215 taxa in the south) and consistent adverse treatment related effects were not noted for any taxa other than Phytoseiidae. At a lower rate of mancozeb representing potential off-field deposits at 3 m due to drift effects were virtually absent on predatory mites in and to all other taxa present.

We study the performance of collaborative spatial/visual tasks under different input configurations. The configurations used are a traditional mouse-monitor, a shared-monitor with multiple-mice, and a multi-user input device (DiamondTouch). Our experiments indicate that there is a significant variation in performance for the different configurations with pairs of users, while there is no such variation with individual users. The traditional configuration is not well-suited for collaborative tasks, and even after augmenting it to a shared monitor with multiple-mice it is still significantly inferior to the multi-user input device.

Spinosad is a natural insecticide derived from an actinomycete bacterium species, Saccharopolyspora spinosa (Mertz and Yao 1990), that displays the efficacy of a synthetic insecticide. It consists of the two most active metabolites, designated spinosyn A and D. Both spinosyns are readily degraded in moist aerobic soil, and field dissipation, which is quite rapid (half-life, 0.3-0.5 d) can be attributed to photolysis or a combination of metabolism and photolysis. Spinosad causes neurological effects in insects that are consistent with the general activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors but by a mechanism that is novel among known insecticide compounds. Spinosad has a high level of efficacy for lepidopteran larvae, as well as some Diptera, Coleoptera, Thysanoptera, and Hymenoptera, but has limited to no activity to other insects and exhibits low toxicity to mammals and other wildlife. Although spinosad has low toxicity to most beneficial insects, initial acute laboratory tests indicated that spinosad is intrinsically toxic to pollinators. The hazard of spinosad to bees was evaluated using a tiered approach. Initial acute laboratory exposures were conducted, followed by toxicity of residues of spinosad on treated foliage, greenhouse studies to assess acute as well as chronic toxicity, confined field assessments, and finally full field studies using a variety of crops under typical use conditions. These data were used to assess the potential of adverse effects on foraging bees following the use of spinosad. This research has clearly demonstrated that spinosad residues that have been allowed to dry for 3 hr are not acutely harmful to honeybees when low-volume and ultralow-volume sprays are used. Further, glasshouse and semifield studies have demonstrated that dried residues are not acutely toxic, and although pollen and nectar from sprayed plants may have transient effects on brood development, the residues do not overtly affect hive viability of either the honeybee or the bumblebee. Field studies in which typical application methods of spinosad were used on a variety of crops have demonstrated that spinosad has low risk to adult honeybees and has little or no effect on hive activity and brood development. The collective evidence from these studies indicates that once spinosad residues have dried on plant foliage, generally 3 hr or less, the risk of spinosad to honeybees is negligible.

Parasitic wasps are an important part of the non-target arthropod fauna within most crop systems and it is therefore necessary to understand the impact of plant protection products upon them. The largest group of primary parasitoids of aphids are the Aphidiinae, a subfamily of the Braconidae, with more than 400 species currently known. One species from this group, Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DeStefani-Perez), has previously been chosen as an indicator for determining the effects of products on parasitic Hymenoptera (European Standard Characteristics of Beneficial Regulatory Testing - ESCORT meeting; Barrett et al, 1994). Subsequently, through a joint initiative of Beneficial Arthropod Registration Testing (BART), European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Commercial Ecotoxicology Testing Group (COMET) and International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC), an Aphidus Experts Group was established to study the methods available for assessing the effects of plant protection products wasps. Over the past two years this group has evaluated various aspects of the ,ethods being used for both laboratory and ‘extended’ laboratory studies. It has established a database od results obtained from a large number of such studies and this has helped to improve our understanding of both the sensitivity anf the natural variability of the test system.

Issued as Progress report summary, Project no. G-33-T05 (continues G-33-T04; continued by G-33-T06)