Calibration of laboratory derived indices for non-target arthropod risk assessment with field data for plant protection products.

The Hazard Quotient (HQ) compares field application rate to intrinsic toxicity assessed with sensitive indicator species. As a hazard indicator for risk assessment, the HQ must be calibrated against measured effects under field conditions. Because protection goals may be context specific, we analyse how choice of acceptance criteria affects setting of the HQ and calibrate HQ for various scenarios under the strict condition that no false negative conclusions may be reached. We use Non-Target Arthropod toxicity data from laboratory studies on inert (Tier 1) and on natural substrates (Tier 2) and calibrate the HQ using application rates and arthropod abundance counts from field studies in orchards, arable fields, and hay meadows in 34 locations in Western Europe. With 21 formulations (17 active substances) tested in mostly multi-rate field studies, our reference data base has 120/121 values at Tier 1/Tier 2, respectively. We use the Proportion of Affected Taxa and Duration of Effect to jointly define acceptance criteria, starting with No Observed Effects. Absence of field effects is correctly predicted with HQ < 1.3 at Tier 1 and HQ < 0.48 at Tier 2, but these settings result in a high proportion of false positive outcomes. Increasing accepted duration of effect from 0 to 4 to 8 weeks results in HQ-threshold changes from 1.3 to 6.4 to 250 for Tier 1 studies and from 0.48 to 1.1 to 5.7 for Tier 2 studies. This coincides with a clear decrease in false positive outcomes. Recovery within a year is correctly concluded for 73% of the products passing the corresponding Tier 1 HQ < 2600 and for 92% of products at Tier 2 (HQ <230). Our analysis shows that the calibration is appropriate for a broad geographical range, for in-field and off-field situations and for phytophagous and non-phytophagous species alike.

The Role of Source-Sink Dynamics in the Assessment of Risk to Nontarget Arthropods from the Use of Plant Protection Products.

The concept of source-sink dynamics as a potentially important component of metapopulation dynamics was introduced in the 1980s. The objective of the present review was to review the considerable body of work that has been developed, to consider its theoretical implications as well as to understand how source-sink dynamics may manifest under field conditions in the specific case of nontarget arthropods in the agricultural environment. Our review concludes that metapopulation dynamics based on field observations are often far more complex than existing theoretical source-sink models would indicate, because they are dependent on numerous population processes and influencing factors. The difficulty in identifying and measuring these factors likely explains why empirical studies assessing source-sink dynamics are scarce. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of considering the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes when assessing the population dynamics of nontarget arthropods in the context of the risk from the use of plant protection products. A need is identified to further develop and thoroughly validate predictive population models, which can incorporate all factors relevant to a specific system. Once reliable predictive models for a number of representative nontarget arthropod species are available, they could provide a meaningful tool for refined risk evaluations (higher tier level risk assessment), addressing specific concerns identified at the initial evaluation stages (lower tier level risk assessment). Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2667-2679. © 2021 ERM, FMC, Syngenta, Bayer AG, BASF SE, Corteva agriscience. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Recalibration of the earthworm tier 1 risk assessment of plant protection products.

In the first step of earthworm risk assessment for plant protection products (PPPs), the risk is assessed by comparing the no-observed effect levels (NOELs) from laboratory reproduction tests with the predicted exposure of the PPP in soil, while applying a trigger value (assessment factor [AF]) to cover uncertainties. If this step indicates a potential risk, field studies are conducted. However, the predicted environmental concentration in soil, which can be calculated, for example, for different soil layers (ranging from 0-1 cm to 0-20 cm), and the AF determine the conservatism that is applied in this first step. In this review paper, the tier 1 earthworm risk assessment for PPPs is calibrated by comparing the NOEL in earthworm reproduction tests with effect levels on earthworm populations under realistic field conditions. A data set of 54 pairs of studies conducted in the laboratory and in the field with the same PPP was compiled, allowing a direct comparison of relevant endpoints. The results indicate that a tier 1 AF of 5 combined with a regulatory relevant soil layer of 0 to 5 cm provides a conservative tier 1 risk assessment. A risk was identified by the tier 1 risk assessment in the majority of the cases at application rates that were of low risk for natural earthworm populations under field conditions. Increasing the conservatism in the tier 1 risk assessment by reducing the depth of the regulatory relevant soil layer or by increasing the tier 1 AF would increase the number of false positives and trigger a large number of additional field studies. This increased conservatism, however, would not increase the margin of safety for earthworm populations. The analysis revealed that the risk assessment is conservative if an AF of 5 and a regulatory relevant soil layer of 0 to 5 cm is used. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:643-650. © 2015 SETAC.

A monitoring study to assess the acute mortality effects of indoxacarb on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in flowering apple orchards.

To evaluate the effect of the indoxacarb 300 g kg(-1) WG, Steward 30WDG, on the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) in apple orchards, a monitoring study was conducted in Dutch apple orchards in April/May 2004. Before apple flowering began, two honey bee colonies were placed in each orchard to investigate honey bee mortality. Each hive was provided with a Münster dead bee trap to collect dead honey bees. The numbers of dead bees found in these Münster dead traps were counted every 3-4 days for about 2 weeks before and after the period of the insecticide treatment. In nine flowering orchards no indoxacarb was applied during the flowering period, which served as control sites. In 30 flowering orchards indoxacarb was sprayed by the fruit growers according to local practice at 170-260 g formulated product ha(-1) (51-78 g AI ha(-1)). In the control orchards the average mortality was 8 honey bees colony(-1) day(-1). The average daily honey bee mortality before and after indoxacarb application was 8 and 10 honey bees colony(-1) day(-1) respectively. At one test site, indoxacarb was mixed with other plant protection products plus plant nutrients, and in this orchard a slight but biologically non-significant increase in acute honey bee mortality was recorded. It was concluded that the application of indoxacarb caused no effects on honey bee mortality, and that the number of dead honey bees counted in the Münster traps in the orchard treated with indoxacarb was comparable with those determined in control orchards.