Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides

Maltby, Lorraine; Arnold, Dave; Arts, G.H.P.; Davies, J.; Heimbach, Fred; Pickl, Christina; Poulsen, Véronique

doi:10.1201/9781439822135

Cited by 42 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Swarowski et al [5] also refer to conceptual problems and lower robustness of the yield/ biomass endpoint. The Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides document [3] recommends the use of growth rate endpoints for macrophytes. These growth rate endpoints should preferably be based on the most sensitive ecologically relevant endpoint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the tier‐1 effect assessment for herbicides protective for aquatic algae and vascular plant communities?

Wijngaarden

Arts

2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the aquatic tier-1 effect assessment for plant protection products with an herbicidal mode of action in Europe, it is usually algae and/or vascular plants that determine the environmental risks. This tier includes tests with at least 2 algae and 1 macrophyte (Lemna). Although such tests are considered to be of a chronic nature (based on the duration of the test in relation to the life cycle of the organism), the measurement endpoints derived from the laboratory tests with plants (including algae) and used in the first-tier effect assessment for herbicides are acute effect concentrations affecting 50% of the test organisms (EC50 values) and not no-observed-effect concentrations (NOECs) or effect concentrations affecting 10% of the test organisms (EC10) values. Other European legislative frameworks (e.g., the Water Framework Directive) use EC10 values. The present study contributes to a validation of the tiered herbicide risk assessment approach by comparing the standard first-tier effect assessment with results of microcosm and mesocosm studies. We evaluated EC50 and EC10 values for standard test algae and macrophytes based on either the growth rate endpoint (E r C50) or the lowest available endpoint for growth rate or biomass/yield (E r /E y C50). These values were compared with the regulatory acceptable concentrations for the threshold option as derived from microcosm and mesocosm studies. For these studies, protection is maintained if growth rate is taken as the regulatory endpoint instead of the lowest value of either growth rate or biomass/yield in conjunction with the standard assessment factor of 10. Based on a limited data set of 14 herbicides, we did not identify a need to change the current practice. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:175-183. C 2017 SETAC

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the tier‐1 effect assessment for herbicides protective for aquatic algae and vascular plant communities?

Wijngaarden

Arts

2017

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the construction of macrophyte SSDs, the AMRAP guidance document (Maltby et al 2010) recommends that a range of morphologically and taxonomically different macrophytes should be included. The current data analysis was restricted by data availability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for other aquatic macrophytes has been raised during the development of new data requirements for registration of pesticides in the EU. This question was discussed in the Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides (AMRAP) workshop (Maltby et al 2010) organized by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). One of the recommendations of this workshop was to collate and analyze data on macrophyte toxicity to enable an assessment of the sensitivity of Lemna spp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Species Sensitivity Distributions, which integrate the results of laboratory toxicity experiments with multiple species to estimate hazardous concentrations (HCx values) for a given fraction of species, were considered useful tools to address the issue of relative sensitivity (Maltby et al 2010). In the past, HCx values for insecticides (Maltby et al 2005), herbicides (Van den Brink et al 2006), and fungicides (Maltby et al 2009) have been validated by comparison with the threshold levels resulting from mesocosm studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relative sensitivity of macrophyte and algal species to herbicides and fungicides: An analysis using species sensitivity distributions

Giddings

Arts

Hommen

2013

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lemna spp. are the standard test species representing aquatic macrophytes in the current risk assessment schemes for herbicides and plant growth regulators in the European Union and North America. At a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) 2008 workshop on Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for Pesticides (AMRAP), a Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) working group was formed to address uncertainties about the sensitivity of Lemna spp. relative to other aquatic macrophyte species. For 11 herbicides and 3 fungicides for which relevant and reliable data were found for at least 6 macrophyte species, SSDs were fitted using lognormal regression. The positions of L. gibba (the most commonly tested Lemna species) and Myriophyllum spicatum (for which standardized test methods are under development) in each SSD were determined where data were available. The sensitivity of standard algal test species required for pesticide registration in the United States under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) relative to the macrophytes in each SSD was also examined (algae were not included in the SSD). L. gibba was among the most sensitive macrophyte species for approximately 50% of the chemicals examined. M. spicatum was among the most sensitive macrophytes for approximately 25% of the chemicals. In most cases, the lowest FIFRA algal species endpoint was lower than the most sensitive macrophyte endpoint. Although no single species consistently represented the most sensitive aquatic plant species, for 12 of 14 chemicals L. gibba and the FIFRA algae included an endpoint near or below the 5th percentile of the macrophyte SSD. For the other compounds, M. spicatum was the most sensitive species of all aquatic plants considered. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:308-318. © 2012 SETAC

show abstract

“…Groups are working on recommendations for enhancing assessments of risk to aquatic macrophytes (Maltby et al 2010). The efforts of these groups, although significant, are limited to freshwater macrophytes and focus on herbicides.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%