Search

Despite elaborate regulation of agricultural pesticides, their occurrence in non-target areas has been linked to adverse ecological effects on insects in several field investigations. Their quantitative role in contributing to the biodiversity crisis is, however, still not known. In a large-scale study across 101 sites of small lowland streams in Central Europe, Germany we revealed that 83% of agricultural streams did not meet the pesticide-related ecological targets. For the first time we identified that agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution was the major driver in reducing vulnerable insect populations in aquatic invertebrate communities, exceeding the relevance of other anthropogenic stressors such as poor hydro-morphological structure and nutrients. We identified that the current authorisation of pesticides, which aims to prevent unacceptable adverse effects, underestimates the actual ecological risk as (i) measured pesticide concentrations exceeded current regulatory acceptable concentrations in 81% of the agricultural streams investigated, (ii) for several pesticides the inertia of the authorisation process impedes the incorporation of new scientific knowledge and (iii) existing thresholds of invertebrate toxicity drivers are not protective by a factor of 5.3 to 40. To provide adequate environmental quality objectives, the authorisation process needs to include monitoring-derived information on pesticide effects at the ecosystem level. Here, we derive such thresholds that ensure a protection of the invertebrate stream community., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The minimum detectable difference (MDD) is a measure of the difference between the means of a treatment and the control that must exist to detect a statistically significant effect. It is a measure at a defined level of probability and a given variability of the data. It provides an indication for the robustness of statistically derived effect thresholds such as the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) when interpreting treatment-related effects on a population exposed to chemicals in semi-field studies (e.g., micro-/mesocosm studies) or field studies. MDD has been proposed in the guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products in edge of field surface waters (EFSA Journal 11(7):3290, 2013), in order to better estimate the robustness of endpoints from such studies for taking regulatory decisions. However, the MDD calculation method as suggested in this framework does not clearly specify the power which is represented by the beta-value (i.e., the level of probability of type II error). This has implications for the interpretation of experimental results, i.e., the derivation of robust effect values and their use in risk assessment of PPPs. In this paper, different methods of MDD calculations are investigated, with an emphasis on their pre-defined levels of type II error-probability. Furthermore, a modification is suggested for an optimal use of the MDD, which ensures a high degree of certainty for decision-makers.

This position paper intends to stimulate a profound rethinking of contemporary agricultural practice. We criticise the current intensity of chemical plant protection in Germany as ecologically unsustainable and thus threatening the achievement of key targets of environmental protection and nature conservation policies. In the first part of the paper, we provide background information on the use of plant protection products (PPP) in German agriculture, the role of agricultural policy, European pesticide legislation, the principles of and framework for environmental risk assessment and risk management of PPP, as well as environmental effects of PPP. The second part is presented against the backdrop of the European "Sustainable Use Directive" (2009/128/EC). This directive requires that "Member States shall adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures, and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides." Reflecting on the corresponding debate in Germany, we suggest the following five key principles for a sustainable use of PPP and provide recommendations for their implementation: (1) minimising use; (2) identifying, quantifying, and communicating risks; (3) optimising risk management; (4) compensating for unavoidable effects; (5) internalising external costs.

Small streams in agricultural landscape can experience short and repeated pulses of fluctuating pesticide concentrations. A single pesticide pulse may not have adverse effects on macrozoobenthos species but repeated pulses may have, especially if the organisms have not yet fully recovered when the second pesticide pulse occurs. Against this background, a comprehensive indoor stream mesocosm study was carried out in order to evaluate the cumulative effects of repeated insecticide pulses on a macrozoobenthos community. Weekly 12h pulses of 12 μg/L of the insecticide imidacloprid were set 3 times in 4 stream mesocosms in 2 series, one in spring and one in summer. Another 4 mesocosms served as controls. Prior to each pulse series, the mesocosms were stocked with macroinvertebrates from an uncontaminated reference stream using straw bags as attraction devices. The straw bag method proved suitable for establishing a functional macroinvertebrate community in the stream mesocosms. The caddisfly species Neureclipsis sp. reacted immediately and most sensitively after a single imidacloprid pulse whilst insect larvae such as ephemerids and dipteran larvae were negatively affected only after repeated imidacloprid pulses. Effects on insect larvae were more pronounced in the summer series most likely due to increased temperature. Abundance was a less sensitive endpoint than sublethal endpoints such as emergence. The results of the study underline that pulse effects are driven by a number of variables like pulse height, pulse duration, number of pulses, time in between pulses and by the species and live stage specific ability of temperature dependent detoxification which all should be taken into account in the risk assessment of pesticides., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This brief communication reports on the main findings of the LEMTOX workshop, held from 9 to 12 September 2007, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Leipzig, Germany. The workshop brought together a diverse group of stakeholders from academia, regulatory authorities, contract research organizations, and industry, representing Europe, the United States, and Asia, to discuss the role of ecological modeling in risk assessments of pesticides, particularly under the European regulatory framework. The following questions were addressed: What are the potential benefits of using ecological models in pesticide registration and risk assessment? What obstacles prevent ecological modeling from being used routinely in regulatory submissions? What actions are needed to overcome the identified obstacles? What recommendations should be made to ensure good modeling practice in this context? The workshop focused exclusively on population models, and discussion was focused on those categories of population models that link effects on individuals (e.g., survival, growth, reproduction, behavior) to effects on population dynamics. The workshop participants concluded that the overall benefits of ecological modeling are that it could bring more ecology into ecological risk assessment, and it could provide an excellent tool for exploring the importance of, and interactions among, ecological complexities. However, there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome before such models will receive wide acceptance for pesticide risk assessment, despite having been used extensively in other contexts (e.g., conservation biology). The need for guidance on Good Modeling Practice (on model development, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, documentation, and communication), as well as the need for case studies that can be used to explore the added value of ecological models for risk assessment, were identified as top priorities. Assessing recovery potential of exposed nontarget species and clarifying the ecological relevance of standard laboratory test results are two areas for which ecological modeling may be able to provide considerable benefits.

The procedure for the risk assessment of pesticides in Germany is currently further developed from a deterministic to a geodata-based probabilistic risk assessment (GeoPRA) approach. As the initial step, the exposure assessment for spray drift in permanent crops, such as vineyards, fruit orchards, and hops, is considered. In our concept, geoinformation tools are used to predict distribution functions for exposure concentrations based mainly on spatial information regarding the neighbourhood of crops and surface waters. A total number of 23 factors affecting the drift into surface waters were assessed and suggestions for their inclusion into the approach developed. The main objectives are to base the exposure estimation on a realistic representation of local landscape characteristics and on empirical results for the impact of each feature on the drift deposition. A framework for the identification of high-risk sites (active management areas [AMAs]) based on protection goals and ecological considerations was developed in order to implement suitable risk mitigation measures. The inclusion of active mitigation measures at sites with identified and verified risk is considered a central and important part of the overall assessment strategy. The suggested GeoPRA procedure itself is comprised of the following 4 steps, including elements of the extensive preliminary work conducted so far: 1) nationwide risk assessment, preferably based only on geodata-based factors; 2) identification of AMAs, including the spatial extension of contamination, the level of contamination, and the tolerable effect levels; 3) refined exposure assessment, using aerial photographs and field surveys; and 4) mitigation measures, with a focus on landscape-level active mitigation measures leading to effective risk reductions. The suggested GeoPRA procedure offers the possibility to actively involve the farming community in the process of pesticide management. Overall, the new procedure will aim at increased flexibility of pesticide application regulations and a high level of protection of surface waters.

Three test-plot series have been performed to gather information on runoff of sulfonamides from manured arable and grassland after sprinkler irrigation. To prepare test slurries with defined aged residues, liquid bovine manure was fortified with sulfadiazine, sulfadimidine, and sulfamethoxazole and stored short-term. After test-slurry application, the arable land was treated by soil cultivation before irrigation, and the manured grassland was irrigated directly with 50 mm h(-1) for 2 h. The runoff suspensions were sampled at 5- to 10-min intervals, separated into aqueous phase and suspended matter and residue analyzed. Higher runoff emissions were found from manured grassland plots. The discharge volumes ranged from 106 to 252 L and the total runoff emissions ranged from 13 to 28% of sulfonamides applied initially. Within the first 20 min of the irrigation period that represented a rainfall of 17 mm, emissions, on average, were 4%. The loads of sulfonamides predominantly occurred in the runoff water. The only emissions via suspended matter, on average, were 0.02%. On arable land, however, the runoff was reduced by soil cultivation. Discharge volumes and sulfonamide emissions were 36 to 128 L and 0.1 to 2.5%, respectively. Despite the high-intensity sprinkler irrigation, major emissions did not occur until a 60-min delay.

The sensitivity of butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) toward the inhibition by the organophosphorus insecticide (OP) parathion-ethyl was compared with that of other esterases in the fish three-spined stickleback. Earlier field and in vitro results had suggested the higher sensitivity to OPs of stickleback BChE when compared with acetylcholinesterase (AChE). In the present study, stickleback were exposed in vivo under environmentally realistic conditions using a short duration of exposure (1 h) and parathion concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 microgram/L. Seventy and 80% of nominal concentrations, respectively, were measured in the 0.01 and 0.1 microgram/L treatments. Following exposure, stickleback were maintained in clean water for 48 h (recovery), allowing the metabolic activation of parathion. After recovery, the activities of BChE (axial muscle, gills, liver), AChE (brain, axial muscle, gills), and carboxylesterase (CaE, liver) were determined. Following exposure to 1 microgram/L parathion, the BChE activity was significantly decreased in liver (approximately 60%) and axial muscle (approximately 30%), while its decrease in gills (approximately 30%) was not significant. No effects on BChE activity were observed with 0.1 and 0.01 microgram/L parathion. The AChE and CaE activities remained unaffected with all parathion concentrations used. The results are discussed with respect to the potential application of stickleback BChE as a biomarker of OP exposure.

A field method is described, which allows the qualitative estimation of pesticide contamination in the edge-of-field runoff. The method employs cheap and easy-to-use runoff sampling bottles, which were installed in an agricultural stream catchment over a period of three growing seasons. During this time 18 runoff events were detected, in nine of which insecticide contamination was measured (maximum concentrations: lindane 0.7 microgram l-1 and 12.7 micrograms kg-1, parathion 20 micrograms l-1 and 728 micrograms kg-1, fenvalerate 18.4 micrograms l-1 and 924 micrograms kg-1). These insecticides were detected mainly as particle-bound chemicals. On about 80% of the occasions the presence or absence of runoff measured in the field was in agreement with a simulation of runoff presence or absence using the runoff model KINEROS.