Which Endpoints Can Be Reliably Assessed in Semi-field Pollinator Species Testing without Estimating False Positive or False Negative? MDD’s and Replicates Issue

M. Candolfi, H. Bargen, Sigrun Bocksch, O. Klein, M. Kleinhenz, S. Knaebe, B. Szczesniak
{"title":"Which Endpoints Can Be Reliably Assessed in Semi-field Pollinator Species Testing without Estimating False Positive or False Negative? MDD’s and Replicates Issue","authors":"M. Candolfi, H. Bargen, Sigrun Bocksch, O. Klein, M. Kleinhenz, S. Knaebe, B. Szczesniak","doi":"10.17265/2161-6256/2018.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Statistical power, number of replicates and experiment complexity of semi-field and field studies on Apis and non-Apis bee species has become a major issue after publication of the draft European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Guidance on risk assessment of plant protection products (PPP) on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). According to this guidance document, field studies have to be designed to be able to detect significance differences as low as 7% for certain endpoints such as reduction in colony size. This will require an immense number of replicates which is obviously not feasible. In the present study, key endpoints such as mortality, termination rate and number of brood cells in honeybee studies, cocoon production and flight activity in solitary bee studies and number of gynes in bumble bee studies (just to mention some of the endpoints considered) in semi-field studies were analyzed, with Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis during the past five years (2013-2017). The results indicate huge differences in the percentage minimal detectable differences (%MDDs) (MDD expressed as median of control value of the endpoint in percent) depending on endpoint and species tested. For honeybee semi-field studies, the lowest %MDDs recorded were between 10% and 15% for the endpoints foraging, number of brood cells and colony strength. The highest %MDDs were observed for the endpoint termination rate, with a %MDD of almost 50%. For the endpoints in bumble bee semi-field studies the %MDDs varied between 17% for bumble bee colony weight and 53% for average mortality during the exposure period in the tunnel. The %MDD for the number of gynes (young queens) was slightly below 25%. For the semi-field solitary bee test system, the %MDDs for the measured endpoints seem to be lower than those for the other two species tested. The %MDDs for the endpoints hatching of offspring, nest occupation and number of cocoons were 8%, 13% and 14%, respectively. Most of the %MDDs were between 10% and 30% indicating clearly that the currently performed experimental design for the semi-field pollinator studies allowed to determine relatively small effects on key study endpoints. The analysis indicated that for all the three bee species tested, the semi-field test design detected low %MDDs for most of the endpoints. It was also observed that detectable differences between the control and PPP treatments were much lower in semi-field test designs than in field studies with these bee species. The “perfect sample size” really does not exist but test design and statistical analysis can be adapted to lower the %MDDs. Measured and simulated (according to Student’s t-test-distribution) data and results showed that statistical evaluations parameter selection (e.g., alpha value), data transformation (log10) and the number of replicates had a direct effect on the ability of the test design to detect lower or higher %MDD values. It could show that a change of alpha value from 0.05 to 0.1, increases the ability of the studies to detect lower %MDDs. For most of the measured endpoints, increasing the number of replicates e.g., from four to eight, improved the power of the test design by decreasing the %MDD. The reduction magnitude of the %MDD is dependent on the endpoint and selection of statistical parameters such as the alpha value. Parameters that display effects at a biologically relevant scale will be a better indicator for effects than parameters that are able to detect minor differences that are not biologically relevant.","PeriodicalId":14977,"journal":{"name":"Journal of agricultural science & technology A","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of agricultural science & technology A","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-6256/2018.03.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Statistical power, number of replicates and experiment complexity of semi-field and field studies on Apis and non-Apis bee species has become a major issue after publication of the draft European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Guidance on risk assessment of plant protection products (PPP) on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). According to this guidance document, field studies have to be designed to be able to detect significance differences as low as 7% for certain endpoints such as reduction in colony size. This will require an immense number of replicates which is obviously not feasible. In the present study, key endpoints such as mortality, termination rate and number of brood cells in honeybee studies, cocoon production and flight activity in solitary bee studies and number of gynes in bumble bee studies (just to mention some of the endpoints considered) in semi-field studies were analyzed, with Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis during the past five years (2013-2017). The results indicate huge differences in the percentage minimal detectable differences (%MDDs) (MDD expressed as median of control value of the endpoint in percent) depending on endpoint and species tested. For honeybee semi-field studies, the lowest %MDDs recorded were between 10% and 15% for the endpoints foraging, number of brood cells and colony strength. The highest %MDDs were observed for the endpoint termination rate, with a %MDD of almost 50%. For the endpoints in bumble bee semi-field studies the %MDDs varied between 17% for bumble bee colony weight and 53% for average mortality during the exposure period in the tunnel. The %MDD for the number of gynes (young queens) was slightly below 25%. For the semi-field solitary bee test system, the %MDDs for the measured endpoints seem to be lower than those for the other two species tested. The %MDDs for the endpoints hatching of offspring, nest occupation and number of cocoons were 8%, 13% and 14%, respectively. Most of the %MDDs were between 10% and 30% indicating clearly that the currently performed experimental design for the semi-field pollinator studies allowed to determine relatively small effects on key study endpoints. The analysis indicated that for all the three bee species tested, the semi-field test design detected low %MDDs for most of the endpoints. It was also observed that detectable differences between the control and PPP treatments were much lower in semi-field test designs than in field studies with these bee species. The “perfect sample size” really does not exist but test design and statistical analysis can be adapted to lower the %MDDs. Measured and simulated (according to Student’s t-test-distribution) data and results showed that statistical evaluations parameter selection (e.g., alpha value), data transformation (log10) and the number of replicates had a direct effect on the ability of the test design to detect lower or higher %MDD values. It could show that a change of alpha value from 0.05 to 0.1, increases the ability of the studies to detect lower %MDDs. For most of the measured endpoints, increasing the number of replicates e.g., from four to eight, improved the power of the test design by decreasing the %MDD. The reduction magnitude of the %MDD is dependent on the endpoint and selection of statistical parameters such as the alpha value. Parameters that display effects at a biologically relevant scale will be a better indicator for effects than parameters that are able to detect minor differences that are not biologically relevant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在半田间传粉媒介物种测试中,哪些端点可以可靠地评估而不需要估计假阳性或假阴性?MDD和复制问题
欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)关于植物保护产品(PPP)对蜜蜂(Apis mellifera, Bombus spp.和独居蜂)的风险评估指南草案发布后,对原料药和非原料药蜜蜂进行半场和现场研究的统计能力、重复次数和实验复杂性已成为一个主要问题。根据该指导文件,实地研究的设计必须能够在某些终点(如菌落大小的减少)检测到低至7%的显著性差异。这将需要大量的复制,这显然是不可行的。在本研究中,以过去5年(2013-2017年)的蜜蜂研究为研究对象,分析了半野外研究中的关键终点,如蜜蜂研究中的死亡率、终止率和育巢细胞数量,独居蜜蜂研究中的茧生产和飞行活动,以及大黄蜂研究中的雌虫数量(仅举一些考虑的终点)。结果表明,在最小可检测差异百分比(%MDD) (MDD表示为终点控制值的中位数,以百分比表示)中存在巨大差异,这取决于所检测的终点和物种。在蜜蜂半野外研究中,最低的mdd %记录在觅食、育雏细胞数量和集落强度端点的10%至15%之间。在终点终止率中观察到最高的MDD %,几乎达到50%。对于大黄蜂半场研究的终点,在隧道暴露期间,大黄蜂群体体重的MDDs百分比在17%和平均死亡率的53%之间变化。gynes(年轻女王)数量的MDD百分比略低于25%。对于半场独居蜂测试系统,测量端点的mdd百分比似乎低于其他两个测试物种。子代孵化率、巢占率和茧数的MDDs分别为8%、13%和14%。大多数% mdd在10%到30%之间,这清楚地表明,目前进行的半田间传粉媒介研究的实验设计允许确定对关键研究终点的相对较小的影响。分析表明,对所有三种蜜蜂,半场试验设计在大多数终点检测到低% mdd。还观察到,在半现场试验设计中,对照和PPP处理之间的可检测差异远低于这些蜜蜂物种的现场研究。“完美的样本量”确实不存在,但测试设计和统计分析可以适应降低% mdd。测量和模拟(根据Student 's t-test-distribution)数据和结果表明,统计评估参数选择(例如alpha值)、数据转换(log10)和重复次数对测试设计检测%MDD值较低或较高的能力有直接影响。结果表明,α值从0.05到0.1的变化,增加了研究检测低% mdd的能力。对于大多数测量的终点,增加重复的数量,例如从4个增加到8个,通过降低%MDD来提高测试设计的能力。%MDD的减少幅度取决于端点和统计参数(如alpha值)的选择。与能够检测到与生物学无关的微小差异的参数相比,以生物学相关尺度显示效果的参数将是效果的更好指标。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Case Study: Promoting Sustainable Energy Greenhouse Heating Systems to Small-Scale Local Farms The Discovery of a Green Wood Beetle Diastocera trifasciata (Coleoptera: Lamiinae) on Mango Tree in South Sudan Integrated Water Resources Management in the Sandougou Catchment Area (Senegal): Going beyond Soil Defence and Restoration (SDR) Application of Symmetric Ploughs for Tillage on Wetland Paddy Fields Evaluation of a Fermented Millet Product of Bacillus subtilis ATCC 55033 as Potential in Biocontrol of Bacteriosis (Xanthomonas axonopodis) in Gulupa (Passiflora edulis Sims)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1