Landscape structure and management alter the outcome of a pesticide ERA: Evaluating impacts of endocrine disruption using the ALMaSS European Brown Hare model

A conceptual framework for landscape-based environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides

While pesticide use is subject to strict regulatory oversight worldwide, it remains a main concern for environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation. This is partly due to the current regulatory approach that relies on separate assessments for each single pesticide, crop use, and non-target organism group at local scales. Such assessments tend to overlook the combined effects of overall pesticide usage at larger spatial scales. Integrative landscape-based approaches are emerging, enabling the consideration of agricultural management, the environmental characteristics, and the combined effects of pesticides applied in a same or in different crops within an area. These developments offer the opportunity to deliver informative risk predictions relevant for different decision contexts including their connection to larger spatial scales and to combine environmental risks of pesticides, with those from other environmental stressors. We discuss the needs, challenges, opportunities and available tools for implementing landscape-based approaches for prospective and retrospective pesticide Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA). A set of "building blocks" that emerged from the discussions have been integrated into a conceptual framework. The framework includes elements to facilitate its implementation, in particular: flexibility to address the needs of relevant users and stakeholders; means to address the inherent complexity of environmental systems; connections to make use of and integrate data derived from monitoring programs; and options for validation and approaches to facilitate future use in a regulatory context. The conceptual model can be applied to existing ERA methodologies, facilitating its comparability, and highlighting interoperability drivers at landscape level. The benefits of landscape-based pesticide ERA extend beyond regulation. Linking and validating risk predictions with relevant environmental impacts under a solid science-based approach will support the setting of protection goals and the formulation of sustainable agricultural strategies. Moreover, landscape ERA offers a communication tool on realistic pesticide impacts in a multistressors environment for stakeholders and citizens.

A brief review on models for birds exposed to chemicals

"A Who's Who of pesticides is therefore of concern to us all. If we are going to live so intimately with these chemicals eating and drinking them, taking them into the very marrow of our bones - we had better know something about their nature and their power."-Rachel Carson, Silent Spring. In her day, Rachel Carson was right: plant protection products (PPP), like all the other chemical substances that humans increasingly release into the environment without further precaution, are among our worst enemies today (Bruhl and Zaller, 2019; Naidu et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2021; Topping et al., 2020). All compartments of the biosphere, air, soil and water, are potential reservoirs within which all species that live there are impaired. Birds are particularly concerned: PPP are recognized as a factor in the decline of their abundance and diversity predominantly in agricultural landscapes. Due to the restrictions on vertebrates testing, in silico-based approaches are an ideal choice alternative given input data are available. This is where the problem lies as we will illustrate in this paper. We performed an extensive literature search covering a long period of time, a wide diversity of bird species, a large range of chemical substances, and as many model types as possible to encompass all our future need to improve environmental risk assessment of chemicals for birds. In the end, we show that poultry species exposed to pesticides are the most studied at the individual level with physiologically based toxicokinetic models. To go beyond, with more species, more chemical types, over several levels of biological organization, we show that observed data are crucially missing (Gilbert, 2011). As a consequence, improving existing models or developing new ones could be like climbing Everest if no additional data can be gathered, especially on chemical effects and toxicodynamic aspects.

Advancing exposure assessment approaches to improve wildlife risk assessment

The exposure assessment component of a Wildlife Ecological Risk Assessment aims to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure to a chemical or environmental contaminant, along with characteristics of the exposed population. This can be challenging in wildlife as there is often high uncertainty and error caused by broad-based, interspecific extrapolation and assumptions often because of a lack of data. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have broadly directed exposure assessments to include estimates of the quantity (dose or concentration), frequency, and duration of exposure to a contaminant of interest while considering "all relevant factors." This ambiguity in the inclusion or exclusion of specific factors (e.g., individual and species-specific biology, diet, or proportion time in treated or contaminated area) can significantly influence the overall risk characterization. In this review, we identify four discrete categories of complexity that should be considered in an exposure assessment-chemical, environmental, organismal, and ecological. These may require more data, but a degree of inclusion at all stages of the risk assessment is critical to moving beyond screening-level methods that have a high degree of uncertainty and suffer from conservatism and a lack of realism. We demonstrate that there are many existing and emerging scientific tools and cross-cutting solutions for tackling exposure complexity. To foster greater application of these methods in wildlife exposure assessments, we present a new framework for risk assessors to construct an "exposure matrix." Using three case studies, we illustrate how the matrix can better inform, integrate, and more transparently communicate the important elements of complexity and realism in exposure assessments for wildlife. Modernizing wildlife exposure assessments is long overdue and will require improved collaboration, data sharing, application of standardized exposure scenarios, better communication of assumptions and uncertainty, and postregulatory tracking. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:674-698. © 2023 SETAC.

Wildlife ecotoxicology of plant protection products: knowns and unknowns about the impacts of currently used pesticides on terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity

Agricultural practices are a major cause of the current loss of biodiversity. Among postwar agricultural intensification practices, the use of plant protection products (PPPs) might be one of the prominent drivers of the loss of wildlife diversity in agroecosystems. A collective scientific assessment was performed upon the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research to review the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services based on the scientific literature. While the effects of legacy banned PPPs on ecosystems and the underlying mechanisms are well documented, the impacts of current use pesticides (CUPs) on biodiversity have rarely been reviewed. Here, we provide an overview of the available knowledge related to the impacts of PPPs, including biopesticides, on terrestrial vertebrates (i.e. herptiles, birds including raptors, bats and small and large mammals). We focused essentially on CUPs and on endpoints at the subindividual, individual, population and community levels, which ultimately linked with effects on biodiversity. We address both direct toxic effects and indirect effects related to ecological processes and review the existing knowledge about wildlife exposure to PPPs. The effects of PPPs on ecological functions and ecosystem services are discussed, as are the aggravating or mitigating factors. Finally, a synthesis of knowns and unknowns is provided, and we identify priorities to fill gaps in knowledge and perspectives for research and wildlife conservation.

Is the effectiveness of policy-driven mitigation measures on carabid populations driven by landscape and farmland heterogeneity? Applying a modelling approach in the Dutch agroecosystems

The growing challenges of protecting biodiversity in agro-ecosystems and maintaining high agricultural productivity has become an important issue within the European Union, shaping both European and national agro-policies. The presented study is part of a broader evaluation of the interim targets of the 2013 Dutch policy plan on sustainable use of pesticides, carried out in 2019 by the PBL (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of selected mitigation measures suggested in the policy plan on non-target terrestrial arthropods using a common carabid beetle Bembidion lampros as a model species. We combined dynamic landscape models with detailed agent-based population modelling to simulate impacts of reduction of toxicity of insecticides, reduction of spray drift to the off-crop area, and increase in area of field margins on the beetle population dynamics in ten agricultural landscapes representing different farming systems. Our simulations showed that a shift towards low-risk products should be the priority if the goal is to increase beetle range. To promote local beetle abundance this needs be coupled with increasing amount of field margins in a landscape. Overall, the observed treatment and landscape effects were highly context-specific and therefore we suggest that care is used when defining and interpretting metrics based on population effects of policy measures. This caveat notwithstanding, the use of simulation to assess complex interactions between landscape, ecology and behaviour of species, and policy measures can be a powerful tool supporting innovative policy management. This should include the development of landscape-context specific targets and/or mitigation measures.

The Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS): a history, design, and philosophy

This article is the first article in the new topical RIO journal collection for ALMaSS. This editorial introduces ALMaSS, its history, component parts and philosophy, and forms a first access point for those interested in knowing more. It is written from my own personal perspective as the instigator and main developer for the system, effectively as the ‘father’ of ALMaSS.

A critical review of effect modeling for ecological risk assessment of plant protection products

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).

Supporting non-target arthropods in agroecosystems: Modelling effects of insecticides and landscape structure on carabids in agricultural landscapes

Intensification of agricultural practices is one of the most important drivers of the dramatic decline of arthropod species. We do not know, however, the relative contribution to decline of different anthropogenic stressors that are part of this process. We used high-resolution dynamic landscape models and advanced spatially-explicit population modelling to estimate the relative importance of insecticide use and landscape structure for population dynamics of a widespread carabid beetle Bembidion lampros. The effects of in-crop mitigation measures through the application of insecticides with reduced lethality, and off-crop mitigation measures by increasing abundance of grassy field margins, were evaluated for the beetle along the gradient of landscape heterogeneity. Reducing the insecticide-driven lethality (from 90 to 10%) had larger positive impacts on beetle density and occupancy than increasing the abundance of field margins in a landscape. The effects of increasing field margins depended on their width and overall abundance in the landscape, but only field margins 4 m wide, applied to at least 40% of fields, resulted in an increase in beetle population density comparable to the scenario with the smallest reduction of insecticide-driven lethality we considered. Our findings suggest the importance of field margins rather as a supporting not stand-alone mitigation measure, as they generally improved effects of reduction of insecticide-driven lethality. Therefore, adding sufficiently broad off-field habitats should help to maintain viable beetle populations in agricultural landscapes even with moderate use of insecticides. In general, the less persistent the insecticides are in the environment, the larger positive impacts of applied mitigation measures on beetle populations were found. We also showed that the effectiveness of applied mitigation measures strongly depends on landscape and farmland heterogeneity. Thus, to achieve the same management or mitigation target in different landscapes might require different strategies.

A systems-based approach to the environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

European hares do not avoid newly pesticide-sprayed fields: Overspray as unnoticed pathway of pesticide exposure

Although risk assessments for pesticides involve quantifying exposure routes for animals, little empirical evidence exists on how individuals use areas where pesticides were used. Further, the European Food Safety Authority guidelines for the risk assessment of birds and mammals currently only include direct dietary uptake from exposed plants as important pathway for pesticides, arguing that dermal exposure is generally negligible. Here, we use the European hare (Lepus europaeus) as a model of a farmland specialist to investigate if (1) hares adjust habitat use in response to pesticide spraying, using GPS data, and (2) calculate the pesticide exposure and uptake over different pathways, i.e. foraging uptake versus overspray and subsequent oral grooming, using an agent-based modelling approach. Apart from avoidance of sprayed fields on the spraying day by inactive hares, which was likely caused by the mechanical disturbance rather than the pesticide itself, we found no evidence that hares reduced the use of pesticide-sprayed fields compared to control observations where no pesticides were applied. Our simulation showed that both the proportion of exposed individuals and the pesticide uptake were related to the pathway of exposure (foraging versus overspray/oral grooming), and depended on the age class and the vegetation type. We found that pesticide uptake via overspray/oral grooming might be 7-fold higher compared to foraging and might thus be an important pathway of pesticide exposure in hares. Our findings emphasize that policy makers, specifically the European Food Safety Authority, should incorporate alternative pathways of pesticide exposure for birds and mammals, such as overspray and oral grooming, when conducting environmental risk assessments and take variation in vegetation structure and age-related animal behavior into account, because these factors might affect pesticide exposure. Interactions between pesticide application and vegetation structure may both increase or decrease exposure but can be predicted using a simulation approach.

Towards a general framework for the assessment of interactive effects of multiple stressors on aquatic ecosystems: Results from the Making Aquatic Ecosystems Great Again (MAEGA) workshop

A workshop was held in Wageningen, The Netherlands, in September 2017 to collate data and literature on three aquatic ecosystem types (agricultural drainage ditches, urban floodplains, and urban estuaries), and develop a general framework for the assessment of multiple stressors on the structure and functioning of these systems. An assessment framework considering multiple stressors is crucial for our understanding of ecosystem responses within a multiply stressed environment, and to inform appropriate environmental management strategies. The framework consists of two components: (i) problem identification and (ii) impact assessment. Both assessments together proceed through the following steps: 1) ecosystem selection; 2) identification of stressors and quantification of their intensity; 3) identification of receptors or sensitive groups for each stressor; 4) identification of stressor-response relationships and their potential interactions; 5) construction of an ecological model that includes relevant functional groups and endpoints; 6) prediction of impacts of multiple stressors, 7) confirmation of these predictions with experimental and monitoring data, and 8) potential adjustment of the ecological model. Steps 7 and 8 allow the assessment to be adaptive and can be repeated until a satisfactory match between model predictions and experimental and monitoring data has been obtained. This paper is the preface of the MAEGA (Making Aquatic Ecosystems Great Again) special section that includes three associated papers which are also published in this volume, which present applications of the framework for each of the three aquatic systems.

Using problem formulation for fit-for-purpose pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors

Pre-market/prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) contribute to risk analyses performed to facilitate decisions about the market introduction of regulated stressors. Robust ERAs begin with an explicit problem formulation, which involves among other steps: (1) formally devising plausible pathways to harm that describe how the deployment of a regulated stressor could be harmful; (2) formulating risk hypotheses about the likelihood and severity of such events; (3) identifying the information that will be useful to test the risk hypotheses; and (4) developing a plan to acquire new data for hypothesis testing should tests with existing information be insufficient for decision-making. Here, we apply problem formulation to the assessment of possible adverse effects of RNA interference-based insecticidal genetically modified (GM) plants, GM growth hormone coho salmon, gene drive-modified mosquitoes and classical biological weed control agents on non-target organisms in a prospective manner, and of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees in a retrospective manner. In addition, specific considerations for the problem formulation for the ERA of nanomaterials and for landscape-scale population-level ERAs are given. We argue that applying problem formulation to ERA maximises the usefulness of ERA studies for decision-making, through an iterative process, because: (1) harm is defined explicitly from the start; (2) the construction of risk hypotheses is guided by policy rather than an exhaustive attempt to address any possible differences; (3) existing information is used effectively; (4) new data are collected with a clear purpose; (5) risk is characterised against well-defined criteria of hypothesis corroboration or falsification; and (6) risk assessment conclusions can be communicated clearly. However, problem formulation is still often hindered by the absence of clear policy goals and decision-making criteria (e.g. definition of protection goals and what constitutes harm) that are needed to guide the interpretation of scientific information. We therefore advocate further dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers to clarify how ERAs can address policy goals and decision-making criteria. Ideally, this dialogue should take place for all classes of regulated stressors, as this can promote alignment and consistency on the desired level of protection and maximum tolerable impacts across regulated stressors.

Linking pesticide marketing authorisations with environmental impact assessments through realistic landscape risk assessment paradigms

Each year, the European Food Safety Authority, supported by a network of experts in the EU Member States, assesses and publishes the environmental risks of 30-40 pesticides active substances. The assessments support hundreds of national risk evaluations for marketing (re-)authorisations of Plant Protection Products. These prospective regulatory evaluations are based on worst-case scenarios in order to provide the high level of protection required by the EU legislations, and establishes the conditions for a correct use of the products including risk mitigations options. However, recent publications suggest that the desired high level of protection may not be achieved with the current risk assessment paradigm. The consideration of larger spatial scales and multiple stressors, including different pesticide uses, could improve the risk assessment process. A next step is the use of these larger spatial scales for evidence-based assessments, evaluating the overall impact of pesticide use on the European environment and biodiversity. Reaching this level would provide science-based support to the National Plans on sustainable use of pesticides and to the broader EU policies defined in the EU Environmental Action Programmes. Recent technological developments, as well as policy efforts, have solved two of the key issues blocking this progress in the past. Data availability and technical capacity for handling Big Data are no longer an unaffordable obstacle. The current proposal presents an alternative environmental risk assessment paradigm, integrating use patterns and pesticides properties with landscape ecotypes and eco-regions, covering the variability of the European agro-environmental conditions. The paradigm is suggested to be implemented in a spatially explicit conceptual model, using the ecosystem services approach and vulnerable key driver species to represent the service providing units. This approach would allow mapping the likelihood and magnitude of the impact of pesticide use on ecosystems functions, environmental resources, and biodiversity at the EU scale.

Ecological Recovery and Resilience in Environmental Risk Assessments at the European Food Safety Authority

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).

Spatial exposure-hazard and landscape models for assessing the impact of GM crops on non-target organisms

The cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) crops may have substantial impacts on populations of non-target organisms (NTOs) in agroecosystems. These impacts should be assessed at larger spatial scales than the cultivated field, and, as landscape-scale experiments are difficult, if not impossible, modelling approaches are needed to address landscape risk management. We present an original stochastic and spatially explicit modelling framework for assessing the risk at the landscape level. We use techniques from spatial statistics for simulating simplified landscapes made up of (aggregated or non-aggregated) GM fields, neutral fields and NTO's habitat areas. The dispersal of toxic pollen grains is obtained by convolving the emission of GM plants and validated dispersal kernel functions while the locations of exposed individuals are drawn from a point process. By taking into account the adherence of the ambient pollen on plants, the loss of pollen due to climatic events, and, an experimentally-validated mortality-dose function we predict risk maps and provide a distribution giving how the risk varies within exposed individuals in the landscape. Then, we consider the impact of the Bt maize on Inachis io in worst-case scenarii where exposed individuals are located in the vicinity of GM fields and pollen shedding overlaps with larval emergence. We perform a Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) to explore numerically how our input parameters influence the risk. Our results confirm the important effects of pollen emission and loss. Most interestingly they highlight that the optimal spatial distribution of GM fields that mitigates the risk depends on our knowledge of the habitats of NTOs, and finally, moderate the influence of the dispersal kernel function.

Scientific Opinion on the state of the science on pesticide risk assessment for amphibians and reptiles

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science to support the potential development of a risk assessment scheme of plant protection products for amphibians and reptiles. The coverage of the risk to amphibians and reptiles by current risk assessments for other vertebrate groups was investigated. Available test methods and exposure models were reviewed with regard to their applicability to amphibians and reptiles. Proposals were made for specific protection goals aiming to protect important ecosystem services and taking into consideration the regulatory framework and existing protection goals for other vertebrates. Uncertainties, knowledge gaps and research needs were highlighted.

Simulation to aid in interpreting biological relevance and setting of population-level protection goals for risk assessment of pesticides

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.

Risk assessment of pesticides and other stressors in bees: Principles, data gaps and perspectives from the European Food Safety Authority

Current approaches to risk assessment in bees do not take into account co-exposures from multiple stressors. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is deploying resources and efforts to move towards a holistic risk assessment approach of multiple stressors in bees. This paper describes the general principles of pesticide risk assessment in bees, including recent developments at EFSA dealing with risk assessment of single and multiple pesticide residues and biological hazards. The EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products in bees highlights the need for the inclusion of an uncertainty analysis, other routes of exposures and multiple stressors such as chemical mixtures and biological agents. The EFSA risk assessment on the survival, spread and establishment of the small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, an invasive alien species, is provided with potential insights for other bee pests such as the Asian hornet, Vespa velutina. Furthermore, data gaps are identified at each step of the risk assessment, and recommendations are made for future research that could be supported under the framework of Horizon 2020. Finally, the recent work conducted at EFSA is presented, under the overarching MUST-B project ("EU efforts towards the development of a holistic approach for the risk assessment on MUltiple STressors in Bees") comprising a toolbox for harmonised data collection under field conditions and a mechanistic model to assess effects from pesticides and other stressors such as biological agents and beekeeping management practices, at the colony level and in a spatially complex landscape. Future perspectives at EFSA include the development of a data model to collate high quality data to calibrate and validate the model to be used as a regulatory tool. Finally, the evidence collected within the framework of MUST-B will support EFSA's activities on the development of a holistic approach to the risk assessment of multiple stressors in bees. In conclusion, EFSA calls for collaborative action at the EU level to establish a common and open access database to serve multiple purposes and different stakeholders.

Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science behind the risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. The current risk assessment scheme is reviewed, taking into account new regulatory frameworks and scientific developments. Proposals are made for specific protection goals for in-soil organisms being key drivers for relevant ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes such as nutrient cycling, soil structure, pest control and biodiversity. Considering the time-scales and biological processes related to the dispersal of the majority of in-soil organisms compared to terrestrial non-target arthropods living above soil, the Panel proposes that in-soil environmental risk assessments are made at in- and off-field scale considering field boundary levels. A new testing strategy which takes into account the relevant exposure routes for in-soil organisms and the potential direct and indirect effects is proposed. In order to address species recovery and long-term impacts of PPPs, the use of population models is also proposed.

The pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is the process used to evaluate the safety of manufactured chemicals to the environment. Here we review the pros and cons of ERA across levels of biological organization, including suborganismal (e.g., biomarkers), individual, population, community, ecosystem and landscapes levels. Our review revealed that level of biological organization is often related negatively with ease at assessing cause-effect relationships, ease of high-throughput screening of large numbers of chemicals (it is especially easier for suborganismal endpoints), and uncertainty of the ERA because low levels of biological organization tend to have a large distance between their measurement (what is quantified) and assessment endpoints (what is to be protected). In contrast, level of biological organization is often related positively with sensitivity to important negative and positive feedbacks and context dependencies within biological systems, and ease at capturing recovery from adverse contaminant effects. Some endpoints did not show obvious trends across levels of biological organization, such as the use of vertebrate animals in chemical testing and ease at screening large numbers of species, and other factors lacked sufficient data across levels of biological organization, such as repeatability, variability, cost per study and cost per species of effects assessment, the latter of which might be a more defensible way to compare costs of ERAs than cost per study. To compensate for weaknesses of ERA at any particular level of biological organization, we also review mathematical modeling approaches commonly used to extrapolate effects across levels of organization. Finally, we provide recommendations for next generation ERA, submitting that if there is an ideal level of biological organization to conduct ERA, it will only emerge if ERA is approached simultaneously from the bottom of biological organization up as well as from the top down, all while employing mathematical modeling approaches where possible to enhance ERA. Because top-down ERA is unconventional, we also offer some suggestions for how it might be implemented efficaciously. We hope this review helps researchers in the field of ERA fill key information gaps and helps risk assessors identify the best levels of biological organization to conduct ERAs with differing goals.