Skip to main content

Advertisement

20 years SETAC GLB: increasing realism of pesticide risk assessment

Article metrics

Abstract

Pesticides contribute to this reduction of biodiversity in ecosystems. Obviously, environmental risk assessment did not prevent adverse pesticide effects on non-target organisms. This called for an identification of processes that are relevant to extrapolate from simplified investigations to the reality of pesticide effects in the field, one of the prominent research areas at the SETAC GLB since two decades. We identify research areas that are relevant to link toxicant effects from test systems with the ecosystem to increase the realism of pesticide risk assessment.

The effect-paradox

At the turn of the millennium, the question arose if agricultural pesticides affect non-target ecosystems. The majority of researchers and risk assessors did not expect general effects. In experiments, pesticide levels considered to be above concentrations occuring in nature revealed only transient and geographically limited effects. For example, the intentional pulse of high permethrin in a natural stream only caused a 17% reduced abundance of invertebrates at 260 m below the point of injection. Recovery of most invertebrates was complete within 6 weeks of treatment [1]. On the other hand, persistent invertebrate community changes in agricultural streams were observed related to short-term rainfall-induced pesticide input from arable land [2] and low-exposure effects on affected invertebrates were reproduced in microcosm experiments [3]. Such contradicting observations on pesticide effects—the effect-paradox—sparked a heated discussion also in Germany. Its outcome has fundamental consequences for the risk assessment and application of pesticides as unacceptable effects should be avoided [4].

SETAC GLB involvement in debating ecosystem effects of pesticides

At this stage, the idea came up to involve SETAC into the discussion process. SETAC’s mission is to support the protection and management of environmental quality and involving stakeholders from all sectors industry, regulation and university. To gauge the interest for a German language branch (GLB), in 1996 the first unofficial SETAC GLB congress was organised in Braunschweig by Matthias Liess, Ralf Schulz and Toni Ratte. The issue on how to link the results from regulatory tests to the effects observed in the field was the impetus to organise the first SETAC conference on this issue: “Vom Labor ins Freiland—Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übertragbarkeit” (From laboratory to field—possibilities and limits of transferability). Due to the great response to the topic, SETAC GLB was officially founded the following year at the conference in Aachen.

The contradictory issue of pesticide effects at ecosystem level was also addressed by the EU/SETAC workshop EPiF (Effects of Pesticide in the Field) comprising 75 scientists from Europe and North America, representing government, industry, and academia. After an extensive review and discussion of available studies, it was concluded that “Effects of pesticides were identified in several of the field studies… in streams of intensively cultivated areas” [5]. Since then, an increasing amount of investigations recognised that biodiversity has dramatically declined in agricultural ecosystems during the last decades [6]. Short-term peak concentrations of pesticides in surface water runoff from arable land [7] were experimentally linked to pesticide runoff with aquatic invertebrate mortality in stream-coupled microcosms [8]. By now, it is generally accepted that also pesticides contribute to this reduction of biodiversity in terrestrial [9, 10] and aquatic [11,12,13] ecosystems.

Ecological risk assessment—ways of improvement

The decades-long decline of biodiversity shows that the application of the ecological risk assessment framework (ERA) did not prevent adverse pesticide effects on non-target organisms. It is discussed that environmental exposure and/or effects are generally underestimated within the risk assessment procedure. This limited predictive ability shows the need for identifying processes that are relevant to extrapolate from simplified investigations to the reality of pesticide effects in the field. Many members of the SETAC GLB made substantial progress in linking toxicant effects from various levels of biological organisation towards the ecosystem. This knowledge is the decisive prerequisite for improving prospective risk assessment and prediction of exposure and effects. It includes the following aspects:

Exposure

  • Until now, exposure models are not validated with monitoring information. Exposure information need at ecosystem level needs to be used to improve exposure models [14].

Biological effects and adaptation

  • Next to contamination of water, sediment toxicity [15] and remobilisation during flood events need to be quantified [16].

  • There is need to linking exposure and bioassay response [17,18,19].

  • As multiple toxicants occur in the environment, their combined effects need to be predicted [20].

  • Impacts of multiple stressors of different types may synergistically exceed the effects of individual stressors. Accordingly, toxicant effects can only be predicted when considering environmental stressors [21].

Ecosystem effects and risk assessment

  • Monitoring ecological effects [22] and adaptation to pesticides [23].

  • Use of pesticide-specific indicator systems to monitor effects [12] and RAC exceedances [24].

  • Mathematical models including environmental factors and biotic interactions [25,26,27].

  • Triad and weight of evidence approaches combining multiple lines of evidence [28].

  • Further development of the risk assessment framework [29]. The listed processes need to be integrated or considered with assessment factors. Due to the high complexity and the variation possibilities of the resulting models, anchoring and validation through monitoring investigations in the field is necessary.

  • Application of governance mechanisms to direct desired developments [30].

References

  1. 1.

    Sibley PK, Kaushik NK, Kreutzweiser DP (1991) Impact of a pulse application of permethrin on the macroinvertebrate community of a headwater stream. Environ Pollut 70:35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(91)90130-O

  2. 2.

    Liess M, Schulz R, Werner U (1993) Macroinvertebrate dynamics in ditches as indicator for surface water runoff—an ecological aspect for assessment of agricultural impact on running water ecosystems. Model Geo-Biosphere Process 2:279–292

  3. 3.

    Liess M, Schulz R (1996) Chronic effects of short-term contamination with the pyrethroid insecticide fenvalerate on the caddisfly Limnephilus lunatus. Hydrobiologia 324:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018170

  4. 4.

    EU Parliament (2009) REGULATION (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directive 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC Off J Eur Union, pp 1–50

  5. 5.

    Liess M, Brown C, Dohmen P, et al (2005) Effects of pesticides in the field–EPIF. SETAC Press, Brussels, Belgium. ISBN: 1-880611-81-3

  6. 6.

    Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E et al (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

  7. 7.

    Liess M, Schulz R, Liess MH-D et al (1999) Determination of insecticide contamination in agricultural headwater streams. Water Res 33:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00174-2

  8. 8.

    Liess M, Schulz R (1999) Linking insecticide contamination and population response in an agricultural stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1948–1955. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180913

  9. 9.

    Rundlof M, Andersson GKS, Bommarco R et al (2015) Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521:U77–U162. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14420

  10. 10.

    Douglas MR, Tooker JF (2016) Meta-analysis reveals that seed-applied neonicotinoids and pyrethroids have similar negative effects on abundance of arthropod natural enemies. PeerJ 4:e2776. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2776

  11. 11.

    Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schafer RB, Liess M (2013) Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:11039–11043. https://doi.org/10.1073/Pnas.1305618110

  12. 12.

    Liess M, Von DerOhe PC (2005) Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams. Env Toxicol Chem 24:954–965. https://doi.org/10.1897/03-652.1

  13. 13.

    Liess M, Schafer RB, Schriever CA (2008) The footprint of pesticide stress in communities—species traits reveal community effects of toxicants. Sci Total Environ 406:484–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.054

  14. 14.

    Schriever CA, von der Ohe PC, Liess M (2007) Estimating pesticide runoff in small streams. Chemosphere 68:2161–2171

  15. 15.

    Hollert H, Ernst M, Seiler TB et al (2009) Strategies for assessing sediment toxicity—a review. Umweltwissenschaften Schadstoff-forsch 21:160–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12302-009-0045-5

  16. 16.

    Wölz J, Cofalla C, Hudjetz S et al (2009) In search for the ecological and toxicological relevance of sediment re-mobilisation and transport during flood events. J Soils Sediments 9:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-008-0050-0

  17. 17.

    Hollert H, Keiter S, König N et al (2003) A new sediment contact assay to assess particle-bound pollutants using zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. J Soils Sediments 3:197–207. https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2003.09.085

  18. 18.

    Jahnke A, Mayer P, Schäfer S et al (2016) Strategies for transferring mixtures of organic contaminants from aquatic environments into bioassays. Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04687

  19. 19.

    Neale PA, Altenburger R, Aït-Aïssa S et al (2017) Development of a bioanalytical test battery for water quality monitoring: fingerprinting identified micropollutants and their contribution to effects in surface water. Water Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.016

  20. 20.

    Altenburger R, Backhaus T, Boedeker W et al (2013) Simplifying complexity: mixture toxicity assessment in the last 20 years. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1685–1687. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2294

  21. 21.

    Liess M, Foit K, Knillmann S et al (2016) Predicting the synergy of multiple stress effects. Sci Rep 6:32965. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32965

  22. 22.

    Knillmann S, Orlinskiy P, Kaske O et al (2018) Indication of pesticide effects and recolonization in streams. Sci Total Environ 630:1619–1627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.056

  23. 23.

    Coors A, Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT (2004) Adaptation to environmental stress in Daphnia magna simultaneously exposed to a xenobiotic. Chemosphere 56:395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Chemosphere.2004.04.025

  24. 24.

    Stehle S, Bub S, Schulz R (2018) Compilation and analysis of global surface water concentrations for individual insecticide compounds. Sci Total Environ 639:516–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.158

  25. 25.

    Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT (2000) Offspring fitness in daphnia: is the daphnia reproduction test appropriate for extrapolating effects on the population level? Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1856. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620190720

  26. 26.

    Büns M, Ratte HT (1991) The combined effects of temperature and food consumption on body weight, egg production and developmental time in Chaoborus crystallinus De Geer (Diptera: Chaoboridae)—some new evidence for the adaptive value of vertical migration. Oecologia 88:470–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317708

  27. 27.

    Goser B, Ratte HT (1994) Experimental evidence of negative interference in Daphnia magna. Oecologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324224

  28. 28.

    Chapman Hollert (2006) Should the sediment triad become a tetrad, pentad or possibly even a hexad? J Soils Sediments 6:4–8. https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2006.01.152

  29. 29.

    Frische T, Egerer S, Matezki S et al (2018) 5-Point programme for sustainable plant protection. Environ Sci Eur. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0136-2

  30. 30.

    Möckel S, Gawel E, Kästner M et al (2015) Eine abgabe auf pflanzenschutzmittel für deutschland. Natur Recht 37:1–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10357-015-2902-x

Download references

Authors’ contributions

ML, TR, PE and HH conceived the topic. ML drafted the manuscript, HH focused the topic in relation to the course of the development of SETAC GLB, TR added information on the development of the prospective risk assessment, PE contributed to the description of current risk assessment. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. HH is Editor-in-Chief of this Journal.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Correspondence to Matthias Liess.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liess, M., Ratte, T., Ebke, P. et al. 20 years SETAC GLB: increasing realism of pesticide risk assessment. Environ Sci Eur 31, 13 (2019) doi:10.1186/s12302-019-0197-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ecotoxicology
  • Environmental chemistry
  • SETAC
  • Anniversary
  • Multiple stressors