Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals

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.

Predicted Dermal and Dietary Exposure of Bats to Pesticides

Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently published a statement which concluded that the current EFSA risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals does not adequately cover bats (Chiroptera). In the present study, we take a more detailed look at the EFSA statement and assumptions made regarding direct (dermal) and indirect (dietary) exposure of bats to pesticides in terms of their realism and the potential implications for risk assessment outcomes. Regarding dietary exposure, errors in the residue per unit dose (RUD) values for flying insects (bat food), proposed in the EFSA bat statement, were identified and corrected. Lower RUD values based on a much broader data base are proposed. Using these more realistic RUD values, together with current assumptions regarding toxicity and exposure, the acute and long-term risk to bats appears to be within the range of those calculated for birds and ground-dwelling mammals under the current risk assessment scheme. Depending on the assumptions made, some uncertainties may remain and should be investigated further. According to the EFSA bat statement, dermal exposure of bats is the most significant route of exposure, resulting in the highest predicted daily doses. We demonstrated that the dermal exposure models in the EFSA bat statement predict much higher residues for bats than those measured for other flying organisms that have larger surface area to volume ratios, and thus would be expected to have the reverse relationship. We also illustrated that the amounts of spray liquid required to achieve the predicted dermal exposures of bats are implausibly high, with bats carrying an amount of spray liquid that exceeds their body weight many fold. It is recommended that a bat risk assessment framework should be based on realistic, sound science, allowing resources to be focused on those scenarios that are not already covered by the existing bird and mammal framework. Therefore, a quantitative risk assessment scheme should not be implemented until the many scientific uncertainties within the EFSA bat statement are addressed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2595-2602. © 2022 Cambridge Environmental Assessments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Quantitative selection of focal birds and mammals in higher-tier risk assessment: An application to rice cultivations

European Pesticide Registration requires a risk assessment (RA) for nontarget organisms according to EU Regulation. European Authorities have developed Guidance Documents (GDs) for RA considering exposure scenarios for the required organisms typical for terrestrial crops. The "Birds and Mammals EFSA GD" allows using multiple sources of information to extract information on species frequency needed in identifying focal species for higher-tier RA. We developed an analytical framework to calculate species frequency according to availability of species and habitat quantitative data. Since the exposure scenarios reported in the EFSA GD are inconsistent for rice, we tested the method on birds and mammals in a portion of the largest rice-cultivated area of Europe, the Italian Po floodplain. We derived three lists of focal species: (a) an expert-based list based on land-use data only, which can be useful for a preliminary exploration of potential candidate species; (b) a list derived from the interpolation of species data only, which reflects actual species frequency in rice fields; and (c) a list obtained by a species distribution model based on species monitoring and land-use data, which account for species selectivity for rice crops and are transferable to other contexts. Focal species were identified for crop-specific diet-foraging guilds, to build specific exposure scenarios to assess the risk from pesticides application in rice fields. The partial differences between our lists and those previously proposed highlight the need for identifying national lists, which can vary according to study area, biogeographic region and exposure scenarios. The application of the proposed method in European rice-producing countries should lead to crop-specific lists, which could then be integrated to obtain a flexible European list applicable to higher-tier RA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1020-1034. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Development of an LC-MS/MS Method for Non-Invasive Biomonitoring of Neonicotinoid and Systemic Herbicide Pesticide Residues in Bat Hair

With over a quarter of the world’s bats species facing extinction, there is a need for ecotoxicological studies to assess if acute and sublethal exposure to newer pesticides such as neonicotinoids and carbonates contribute to population declines. Pesticide exposure studies in bats have been limited to terminal sampling methods, therefore we developed a non-invasive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method utilizing hair trimmings. The hair of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) was collected and pooled by county to assess the best extraction solvent and solid-phase-extraction (SPE) clean-up cartridges. Using the best performing extraction solvent, methanol, and the best performing SPE cartridge, Chromabond HR-X, we developed an optimized multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of 3 neonicotinoids, clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam; 1 carbonate, carbaryl; and 4 systemic herbicides, 2,4-D, atrazine, dicamba, and glyphosate. The optimized protocol yielded the detection of 3–8 of the compounds in the county-level bat hair pools. 2,4-D, glyphosate, and imidacloprid were found in all samples with two of the county-level hair samples having glyphosate concentrations of over 3500 pg/mg of hair. This approach has great potential to facilitate non-terminal ecotoxicological studies assessing the effects of subacute (chronic) pesticide exposure in threatened and endangered bat species and other species experiencing population declines.

Acute toxicity and metabolism of pesticides in birds

The median lethal dose of pesticide in acute oral toxicity, used as a conservative index in avian risk assessment, varies by the species with differences of less than one order of magnitude, depending on body size, feeding habit, and metabolic enzyme activity. The profiles of pesticide metabolism in birds with characteristic conjugations are basically common to those in mammals, but less information is available on their relevant enzymes. The higher toxicity of some pesticides in birds than in mammals is due to the lower activity of avian metabolic enzymes. The bioaccumulation in birds is limited for very hydrophobic pesticides resistant to metabolic degradation. Several in silico approaches using the descriptors of a pesticide molecule have recently been employed to estimate the profiles of acute oral toxicity and bioaccumulation.

Assessing the Risks to Bats from Plant Protection Products: A Review of the Recent European Food Safety Authority Statement Regarding Toxicity and Exposure Routes

Wild birds and mammals that feed in agricultural habitats are potentially exposed to pesticides through various routes. Until recently, it has been implicitly assumed that the existing European Union risk assessment scheme for birds and mammals also covered bats (Chiroptera). However, recent publications raised concerns and, in 2019, a scientific statement was published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that concluded that bats were not adequately covered by the current risk assessment scheme. We review the evidence presented and assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement relating to toxicity, bioaccumulation, and exposure pathways (oral, dermal, and inhalation), in terms of their relevance for bats potentially foraging in agricultural areas in the European Union; we highlight where uncertainties remain and how these could be addressed. Based on our review, it is clear that there is still much uncertainty with regard to the appropriateness of the assumptions made in the EFSA bat statement. Significantly more information needs to be gathered to answer fundamental questions regarding bat behavior in agricultural landscapes, together with the relative sensitivity of bats to pesticide exposure. Given the current critical information gaps, it is recommended that quantitative risk assessments for bats not be performed for pesticides until more robust, reliable, and relevant data are available. The risk to bats can then be compared with that for birds and ground-dwelling mammals, to determine the protectiveness of the existing scheme and thus whether a bat scenario is indeed required and under what circumstances. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2978-2989. © 2021 Cambridge Environmental Assessments, part of RSK ADAS Ltd. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators?

Simple Summary

Bioindicators are organisms that react to the quality or characteristics of the environment and their changes. They are vitally important to track environmental alterations and take action to mitigate them. As choosing the right bioindicators has important policy implications, it is crucial to select them to tackle clear goals rather than selling specific organisms as bioindicators for other reasons, such as for improving their public profile and encourage species conservation. Bats are a species-rich mammal group that provide key services such as pest suppression, pollination of plants of economic importance or seed dispersal. Bats show clear reactions to environmental alterations and as such have been proposed as potentially useful bioindicators. Based on the relatively limited number of studies available, bats are likely excellent indicators in habitats such as rivers, forests, and urban sites. However, more testing across broad geographic areas is needed, and establishing research networks is fundamental to reach this goal. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators exist, such as difficulties in separating cryptic species and identifying bats in flight from their calls. It is often also problematic to establish the environmental factors that influence the distribution and behaviour of bats.

Abstract

Bats show responses to anthropogenic stressors linked to changes in other ecosystem components such as insects, and as K-selected mammals, exhibit fast population declines. This speciose, widespread mammal group shows an impressive trophic diversity and provides key ecosystem services. For these and other reasons, bats might act as suitable bioindicators in many environmental contexts. However, few studies have explicitly tested this potential, and in some cases, stating that bats are useful bioindicators more closely resembles a slogan to support conservation than a well-grounded piece of scientific evidence. Here, we review the available information and highlight the limitations that arise in using bats as bioindicators. Based on the limited number of studies available, the use of bats as bioindicators is highly promising and warrants further investigation in specific contexts such as river quality, urbanisation, farming practices, forestry, bioaccumulation, and climate change. Whether bats may also serve as surrogate taxa remains a controversial yet highly interesting matter. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators include taxonomical issues, sampling problems, difficulties in associating responses with specific stressors, and geographically biased or delayed responses. Overall, we urge the scientific community to test bat responses to specific stressors in selected ecosystem types and develop research networks to explore the geographic consistency of such responses. The high cost of sampling equipment (ultrasound detectors) is being greatly reduced by technological advances, and the legal obligation to monitor bat populations already existing in many countries such as those in the EU offers an important opportunity to accomplish two objectives (conservation and bioindication) with one action.

Magnitude and decline of pesticide co-formulant residues in vegetables and fruits: results from field trials compared to estimated values

BACKGROUND

The application of plant protection products (PPPs) leads to the formation of residues in treated crops. Even though PPPs contain considerable amounts of co-formulants, regulation and monitoring of residues normally focus on the active substances (a.s.) only. For our study we selected four commonly used co-formulants (three anionic surfactants and one organic solvent) and investigated the formation and decline of residues in vegetables and apples under field conditions. The aims were to characterize the behavior of co-formulant residues on crops and to provide a basis for future investigations on consumer exposure.

RESULTS

The development of robust and sensitive analytical methods allowed the quantification of residues in the low μg/kg-level. After treatment with PPPs, co-formulants were detected up to approximately 10 mg kg^-1 in vegetables. In general, these residues declined fast with half-lives of a few days. Wash-off and volatilization were identified as important removal processes for anionic surfactants and the organic solvent, respectively. However, in specific crops (parsley and celery), organic solvent residues were still considerable (≈2 mg kg^-1 ) 2 weeks after treatment. We further demonstrate that it is feasible to estimate co-formulant residues using publicly available data on pesticide a.s.

CONCLUSION

To date no information on co-formulant residues in food is available. The findings from our field trials, as well as the presented approach for the prediction of residues, provide key elements for future consideration of consumer exposure to PPP co-formulants. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.