Close to reality? Micro-/mesocosm communities do not represent natural macroinvertebrate communities

Reiber, Lena; Foit, Kaarina; Liess, Matthias; Karaoglan, Bilgin; Wogram, Joern; Duquesne, Sabine

doi:10.1186/s12302-022-00643-x

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the nal step of calibration, which involves the evaluation of the protectiveness of the assessment based on the surrogate reference tier compared to the reference tier, needs to be documented. This is a signi cant concern because the representativeness of the assemblages tested in micro-/mesocosm studies for real eld conditions may be limited [24]. In addition, a large-scale monitoring study of surface waters in agricultural areas of Germany identi ed that the current authorisation of PPPs underestimates the actual ecological risk to invertebrates [25].…”

Section: Change Of Endpoint Selected and Shift In Conservatism Of Tie...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

Duquesne

Brendel

Hönemann

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment using the lowest available endpoint. For aquatic primary producers, however, the recommendation to use the lowest endpoint (referring to 50% inhibition in: “biomass” –area under the curve- EbC50, yield EyC50 or growth rate ErC50) and a default assessment factor (AF) of 10 has been changed in 2015, by switching to the sole use of the growth rate inhibition endpoint (ErC50). This study examines the implications of this change on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 risk assessment and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the AF of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism level of the tier 1 risk assessment. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective than the previously agreed assessment. To ensure a similar level of protection, we recommend to increase the AF to a minimum of 24 in the tier 1 risk assessment based on ErC50. Independently of the endpoint selected for the tier 1 risk assessment, several issues in the general risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic primary producers contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g. a lack of appropriate comparison of the surrogate reference tier with field conditions, the suitability of ErC50 for certain macrophytes species, and the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previously agreed protection level for aquatic primary producers. In view of multiple uncertainties pointing at a higher risk in the field as assumed in the ERA, continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor jeopardize the aim of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters.

show abstract

Section: Change Of Endpoint Selected and Shift In Conservatism Of Tie...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

Duquesne

Brendel

Hönemann

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

Sabine,

Stephan,

Linda

et al. 2023

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—EbC50), increase in biomass (yield- EyC50) or growth rate (ErC50) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint (ErC50) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on ErC50. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters.

show abstract

Are micro-/mesocosm studies really not suitable for the risk assessment of plant protection products? A comment on Reiber et al. (2022)

Hommen,

Brown,

Bruns

et al. 2024

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A recently published article, by Reiber et al., on the representativity of macroinvertebrate communities in outdoor micro- or mesocosm studies, used as a higher tier tool in the environmental risk assessment of plant protection products (PPPs) in the EU, concluded that ‘micro-/mesocosm studies do not represent natural macroinvertebrate communities’. Fundamentally, the article based its conclusion on the analysis of data from 26 streams used in a monitoring project in Germany (2018–2019), in comparison to taxa found in seven lentic micro- and mesocosm studies, conducted at four test sites (2013 – 2018), and submitted to the UBA, Germany. Results There are multiple reasons why this conclusion is incorrect, e.g. the number of taxa, for which the Minimum Detectable Differences (MDDs) were low enough to allow a detection of direct effects in the seven lentic mesocosm studies, cannot be compared to the number of taxa just present in at least five of 26 streams. We have further investigated the data from five of the seven studies which were analysed in detail by Reiber et al. and determined that the MDDs of 12 to 18 invertebrate taxa per study fulfilled the current recommendation to allow a detection of medium effects (MDD up to 70%). However, which taxa can be considered potentially sensitive depends on the specific test item. While lentic test systems may not be suitable to test effects on typical stream taxa, taxa occurring in lentic systems such as ponds and ditches are not by definition less sensitive, or vulnerable, to pesticides than taxa living in streams, and their relative sensitivity can be checked in laboratory tests, or artificial streams, if needed. Conclusions In our view, well conducted micro- and mesocosm studies do provide reliable and useful data for the environmental risk assessment of plant protection products covering long-term, as well as indirect, effects under semi-natural conditions.

show abstract

Close to reality? Micro-/mesocosm communities do not represent natural macroinvertebrate communities

Cited by 4 publications

References 51 publications

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products

Are micro-/mesocosm studies really not suitable for the risk assessment of plant protection products? A comment on Reiber et al. (2022)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About