What can laboratory studies tell us about potential effects of pesticides on nontarget arthropods populations and communities in the field?

IF 3 4区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1002/ieam.4987

Helen Thompson, Charlotte Elston

{"title":"What can laboratory studies tell us about potential effects of pesticides on nontarget arthropods populations and communities in the field?","authors":"Helen Thompson, Charlotte Elston","doi":"10.1002/ieam.4987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decades, concern has been increasing over reported declines in aboveground biodiversity on farmland. In many regions, data on the toxicity of pesticides to honeybees (Apis mellifera), but not wider nontarget arthropod (NTA) data, are required for pesticide registration. In Europe, the effects of pesticides on NTAs and honeybees have been the subject of regulatory risk assessment for more than 30 years, resulting in a large database. Although insecticides may be expected to affect NTA populations, solely identifying insecticidal modes of action for further NTA testing would result in redundancy among low-risk testing products and may also exclude other modes of action with potential effects in the field. This study assessed whether the honeybee acute risk assessment could provide any indication of the potential impact and recovery time of NTAs in cropped areas at the field scale and, if so, how it might be used in a tiered testing approach. The hazard quotients (HQs; foliar application rate/LR50) were derived for 151 active substances (32% insecticides, 28% fungicides, 38% herbicides, 2% plant growth regulators) for which toxicity data for established EU Tier 1 NTA indicator species (Typhlodromus pyri, Aphidius rhopalosiphi) and application rate data were available. These HQs were compared with published NTA HQ thresholds indicating the time to recovery of NTA populations and communities in field studies (>1 to >12 months). Using the same application rate data, honeybee acute risk quotient (RQ) and HQ were also determined and compared with NTA HQs and honeybee regulatory thresholds. These comparisons demonstrated that, where required, the current regulatory honeybee acute RQ of 0.4 or honeybee HQ of 50 can provide an efficient screening tier to target NTA testing at those products and uses with potential effects in the field where recovery may exceed 12 months. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:2326–2333. © 2024 SETAC","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":"20 6","pages":"2326-2333"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4987","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the past decades, concern has been increasing over reported declines in aboveground biodiversity on farmland. In many regions, data on the toxicity of pesticides to honeybees (Apis mellifera), but not wider nontarget arthropod (NTA) data, are required for pesticide registration. In Europe, the effects of pesticides on NTAs and honeybees have been the subject of regulatory risk assessment for more than 30 years, resulting in a large database. Although insecticides may be expected to affect NTA populations, solely identifying insecticidal modes of action for further NTA testing would result in redundancy among low-risk testing products and may also exclude other modes of action with potential effects in the field. This study assessed whether the honeybee acute risk assessment could provide any indication of the potential impact and recovery time of NTAs in cropped areas at the field scale and, if so, how it might be used in a tiered testing approach. The hazard quotients (HQs; foliar application rate/LR₅₀) were derived for 151 active substances (32% insecticides, 28% fungicides, 38% herbicides, 2% plant growth regulators) for which toxicity data for established EU Tier 1 NTA indicator species (Typhlodromus pyri, Aphidius rhopalosiphi) and application rate data were available. These HQs were compared with published NTA HQ thresholds indicating the time to recovery of NTA populations and communities in field studies (>1 to >12 months). Using the same application rate data, honeybee acute risk quotient (RQ) and HQ were also determined and compared with NTA HQs and honeybee regulatory thresholds. These comparisons demonstrated that, where required, the current regulatory honeybee acute RQ of 0.4 or honeybee HQ of 50 can provide an efficient screening tier to target NTA testing at those products and uses with potential effects in the field where recovery may exceed 12 months. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:2326–2333. © 2024 SETAC

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

关于农药对田间非目标节肢动物种群和群落的潜在影响，实验室研究能告诉我们什么？

过去几十年来，人们对农田地上生物多样性减少的报道日益关注。在许多地区，农药登记需要提供农药对蜜蜂（Apis mellifera）的毒性数据，但不需要更广泛的非目标节肢动物（NTA）数据。在欧洲，农药对非目标节肢动物和蜜蜂的影响已成为监管风险评估的主题长达 30 多年，从而形成了一个庞大的数据库。尽管预计杀虫剂可能会影响 NTA 种群，但仅仅确定杀虫剂的作用模式以进一步进行 NTA 测试会造成低风险测试产品的冗余，而且还可能排除在实地具有潜在影响的其他作用模式。本研究评估了蜜蜂急性风险评估是否能说明 NTAs 在田间种植区的潜在影响和恢复时间，如果能，如何将其用于分级测试方法。针对 151 种活性物质（32% 杀虫剂、28% 杀菌剂、38% 除草剂、2% 植物生长调节剂）得出了危害商数（HQs；叶面施用率/LR50），这些活性物质具有既定的欧盟 1 级 NTA 指示物种（Typhlodromus pyri、Aphidius rhopalosiphi）毒性数据和施用率数据。这些 HQ 与已公布的 NTA HQ 临界值进行了比较，后者表明了实地研究中 NTA 种群和群落的恢复时间（>1 到 >12 个月）。使用相同的施药量数据，还确定了蜜蜂急性风险商数（RQ）和 HQ，并与 NTA HQ 和蜜蜂监管阈值进行了比较。这些比较结果表明，在需要的情况下，目前蜜蜂急性风险商数为 0.4 或蜜蜂 HQ 为 50 的监管阈值可提供有效的筛选层级，以针对那些在田间具有潜在影响、恢复期可能超过 12 个月的产品和用途进行 NTA 测试。集成环境评估管理 2024;00:1-8。© 2024 SETAC.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

6.50%

发文量

156

期刊介绍： Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas: Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making Health and ecological risk and impact assessment Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems Sustaining ecosystems Managing large-scale environmental change Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society: Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.

期刊最新文献

Issue Information Books and Other Reviews The postmodern era of environmental regulation Studies to assess natural resource recovery and evaluate monitoring methods for restored bottomland hardwood forests Vegetation community recovery on restored bottomland hardwood forests in northeast Indiana, USA