EEE201 Pesticides Lecture Notes PDF

EEE201 Biogeochemische Kreisläufe und globale Umweltveränderungen Pesticides 2) Environmental effects and mitigation strategies Stefanie Lutz, Gilda Dell’Ambrogio, Marcel van der Heijden University of Zurich and Agroscope...

EEE201 Biogeochemische Kreisläufe und globale Umweltveränderungen Pesticides 2) Environmental effects and mitigation strategies Stefanie Lutz, Gilda Dell’Ambrogio, Marcel van der Heijden University of Zurich and Agroscope 29.11.2024 Recap of the last course Different classifications of pesticides: mode of application, target species, selectivity, chemical composition. Most pesticides are applied as formulations containing a mixture of active and inert ingredients. Global increase in pesticide use, herbicides are the most used pesticides worldwide, fungicides in Switzerland. Sources of pesticides: agriculture, urban areas, households, industry The distribution of pesticides in the environment depends on the physico-chemical properties of the compound (mobility, degradation, bioaccumulation) and the environmental conditions. Assessment of pesticides in the environment using Measured Environmental Concentrations (MEC) and Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC) Pesticides are widely distributed in the environment in all compartments (e.g. water, soil, sediment). Soil monitoring studies show that most environmental samples analysed contain residues of more than one pesticide. 2 Learning goals 1. Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? What are the interactions between contaminants (pesticides), environmental conditions and living organisms? How can effects be observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation? 2. Mitigation strategies What are the concepts of risk assessment? What is the current status of pesticide authorisation? How are pesticides monitored? What are sustainable alternatives to pesticides? 3 Learning goals 1. Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? What are the interactions between contaminants (pesticides), environmental conditions and living organisms? How can effects be observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation? 2. Mitigation strategies What are the concepts of risk assessment? What is the current status of pesticide authorisation? How are pesticides monitored? What are sustainable alternatives to pesticides? 4 Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? Environmental Exposure Effect Fate pesticides Transport pathways Uptake, Molecule Concentrations in tranformation, Cell the environment elimination Organs bioaccumulation Organism Population Communities Ecosystem functions Environmental chemistry (Eco)toxicology Ecology 5 Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? Type of substance Dose Mixture Contaminant 1 3 Environmental conditions Organism traits 2 Bioavailability Exposure Habitat quality Detoxification/regulation 6 Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? Type of substance Dose Mixture Contaminant 1 3 Environmental conditions Organism traits 2 Bioavailability Exposure Habitat quality Detoxification/regulation 7  Effects effects Environmental Environmental conditions - contaminant 1 The way the contaminant interact with its surrounding environment determines its transport and fate Especially true for complex matrices like soils and sediments Bioavailability The fate of a contaminant depends on: Its properties (solubility, Kow, …) Properties of the medium (organic matter, texture, pH, CEC, water holding capacity, …) Pignatello and Mason 2020 8 Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? Type of substance Dose Mixture Contaminant 1 3 Environmental conditions Organism traits 2 Bioavailability Exposure Habitat quality Detoxification/regulation 9  Effects effects Environmental Environmental conditions - organism 2 The way the organism performs in the environment depends on the conditions of the surrounding environment Especially true for complex matrices like soils and sediments Habitat quality E.g. performance (reproduction) of a collembola species (H. assimilis) in different uncontaminated soils Amorim et al. 2005 10 Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? Type of substance Dose Mixture Contaminant 1 3 Environmental conditions Organism traits 2 Bioavailability Exposure Habitat quality Detoxification/regulation 11  Effects effects Environmental Contaminant - organism The way in which the contaminant affects the organism depends on the mode 3 of action of the contaminant and on its dose Type of substance and mode of action See previous lecture Essential Non essential Hormesis element element (e.g. (negative) response Dose (e.g. metal) pesticides) “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison” (Paracelsus, 1538) True in many cases: dose-response relationship Exceptions: - Endocrine disruptors (interfere with hormonal system even at very low doses) dose - Non-monotonic dose-response (hormesis, i.e. stimulation at low doses and inhibition at 12 higher doses)  Effects effects Environmental Contaminant - organism 3 The way in which the contaminant affects the organism depends on how the organism is exposed and how sensitive it is. Exposure Depends on organism and Bioaccumulation contaminant behaviour May be acute, chronic, fluctuating… Distribution e.g. blood Metabolism/detoxification Absorption Biotransformation After uptake by the organisms the e.g. skin contact, ingestion, e.g. liver Elimination respiration e.g. urin, faeces contaminant is subject to different pathways Toxic effects possible 13 Effects Effects How can the effects of a contaminant on organisms/ecosystems be assessed? A target is exposed to one/more substances, e.g.: - Part of the organism (e.g. cell lines) - Whole organism (ex. adult fish, earthworm) - Population/community (e.g. soil microbial community) https://www.ecotoxcentre.ch/ Exposure can be: Intentional: to measure the exact response of a defined substance (e.g. laboratory) Observed from field situation (ex. from a known contaminated site) Mathieu Renaud, EcotoxCentre The response (effect) is observed and measured 14  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 15 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation The measured effect should always be compared to a «normal» response (e.g. uncontaminated control/site): - define when a response is significantly different - possibly define toxicity thresholds (e.g. EC50) The properties of the medium play a crucial role: - The control and contaminated medium should be as similar as possible Kobetičová et al. 2009 - "easy" if the medium is deliberately contaminated, more difficult for realistic field situations 16  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 17 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Subindividual level Response of an organism at the molecular, biochemical, DNA gene Chemical cellular level (biomarkers) expression (pesticide) Can indicate exposure to a contaminant or provide an RNA transcriptio early warning signal before effects occur at a higher n level of biological organisation: - Biomarker of exposure (defence) protein e.g. activation of detoxification/biotransformation enzymes (ex. Glutathione-S-Transferase, GST) - Biomarker of effect e.g. neurotoxicity (Achetylcholinesterase inhibition), metabolite oxidative stress, genotoxicity, immunotoxicity function 18 Effects: Effects Subindividual level Example: Gene expression (multibiomarker): Biomarker Juvenile trouts from ten rivers in agricultural (AGR) or extensively managed (EXT) catchments ~100 genes indicating effects from pesticide exposure Results: Over-/under-expression of genes suggests pesticide exposure/toxicity at several sites In contrast, pesticide concentrations (chemistry) suggested risk at only one site Conclusions: Biomarkers are promising and rapid early warning tools and can indicate potential risk where other analyses (e.g. chemistry) do not. Chemistry Don't always translate into direct effects Potential risk → Ideally combined with evaluation of effects at a No risk higher biological level! Voisin et al., 2023 19  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 20 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Individual/population level Example: Reproduction effects 1) Collembola exposed to soil contaminated with neonicotinoids 1. Intentional contamination with increasing concentrations of thiamethoxam (laboratory) 2. 21 field samples at real concentrations Adults exposed to soil in the lab Output: number of juveniles produced Results: 2) 50% Effect Concentration (EC50) Derived EC50 higher than concentrations measured in the field Large variation in reproduction from field samples and not correlated with neonicotinoid concentrations Natural variability? Yes but also likely joint effects of multiple stressors Conclusions: Effects at the individual levels are more indicative of toxicity than subindividual. Important to distinguish between effects due to the chemical only and other joint effects! Dell’Ambrogio, 2016 21  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 22 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Population/community level Example: Microbial signature of pesticides 60 fields under conventional, no-till and organic management Assessment of soil microbiome: relative abundance and functional characteristics Relative importance of soil properties, management, pesticide residues Results: Main drivers: Environmental factors (climate, geography, and soil properties) Of all management factors, pesticides best explained soil microbiome traits In particular, genes related to nitrogen cycling significantly associated with pesticide residues Conclusions: Walder et al. 2022 Pesticide residues influence microbiome composition in arable soils 23 Effects: Effects Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Increasing level of biological organisation increases complexity. Effects on wildlife biodiversity are relatively well documented today, mostly at the individual/population level. However, with increasing biological scale and exposure scenarios, the effects of pesticides are becoming more Documented effects of pesticides on wildlife at different levels of biological complex. organisation and known (solid arrows) or evidence-based, expected 24 (dashed arrows) relationships between them. Köhler and Triebskorn 2013 Effects: Effects Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects To describe impacts on communities and ecosystems, additional factors that are less often considered in controlled (sub-individual) biological organisations need to be considered: 1. Direct 2. Indirect 3. Mixtures 4. Multiple stressors 25 Effects: Effects Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects 1. Direct effects Traditionally, research has focused on assessing expected Expected effects, i.e. based on their mode of action on non-target selectivity of species that have similar characteristics to the target pest. active substances - e.g. effects of insecticides on non-target arthropods, of herbicides on non-target plants... There is now increasing evidence of unexpected effects, i.e. effects that are not related to their mode of action and on Unexpected different groups of species than the target (Leenhardt et al. additional 2023). effects - e.g. endocrine disruption, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity... 26 Effects: Effects Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects Herbicidal substance Direct effect 2. Indirect effects Indirect effects Direct effects on some groups of organisms can lead to a cascade of effects on higher organisms Reduction of plant in the food chain, affecting population dynamics population (intensity of predation/competition) - e.g. Taylor et al. 2003, Boatman et al., 2004; Kohler and Triebskorn, 2013, Gibbons et al. Reduction Reduction 2015 of herbivores of insects The link between effects on organisms and population dynamics is still poorly understood Reduction Reduction due to the complexity of natural interactions and of of … carnivores insectivores stressors... 27 Effects: Effects Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects 3. Mixtures In the real world, organisms are exposed not only to one pesticide, but to a mixture of pesticides. These cocktails may (or may not) interact with each other in different ways. https://www.kuritaamerica.com/ 28 Effects: Effects Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects 4. Multiple stressors In the real world, organisms are not only exposed to pesticides, but also to a variety of other factors (e.g. other chemicals, climate, management factors) that may interact. How can the effects of pesticides be disentangled from other effects? Ideally integrated (combined) approaches: - e.g. the TRIAD approach uses three different and complementary lines of evidence for the assessment of contaminated sites (ISO 19204, 2017). 29  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 30 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Population/community level – groups at higher risks a) Terrestrial invertebrates (Sanchez-Bayo et Wyckhuys, 2019) : invertebrates in arable ecosystems. Leenhardt et al. 2023 Exposure pathways to pesticides (red dot) for terrestrial Lepidoptera Hymenoptera Coleoptera Direct effects: reduction of pollinator and beneficial insect populations Indirect effects: reduction of plant/flower population providing habitat & resources for these species Most studied and well-documented as the main cause of invertebrate declines: neonicotinoids and pyrethroids (Leenhardt et al. 2023) 31 Effects: Effects Population/community level – groups at higher risks b) Birds (Leenhardt et al. 2023) : Direct effects: population reduction through ingestion of treated seeds Indirect effects: reduction or contamination of prey populations Most studied and well documented as the main cause of bird declines: neonicotinoids, fipronil (Humann- Guilleminot et al., 2021, Gibbons et al., 2015) ) 32 Effects: Effects Population/community level – groups at higher risks c) Bats (Leenhardt et al. 2023): Direct effects: intoxication or ingestion of contaminated objects, probably also related to orientation (echolocation system) (Wu et al., 2020) Indirect effects: reduction or contamination of prey populations Most studied and well-documented as the main cause of bird declines: old persistent substances such as organochlorines (DDT, lindane), organophosphates and carbamates (chlorpyrifos), pyrethroids (Leenhardt et al., 2023) 33 Effects: Effects Population/community level – groups at higher risks d) Amphibians (Ockleford et al., 2018): Direct effects: reduction in immune defences, endocrine disruption (Wu et al., 2020) Indirect effects: changes in pathogen population dynamics Limitations in assessing pesticide effects on amphibians - Often complex multi-stressor dynamics (Mann et al. 2009): combined effects with habitat loss, climate change, pathogen populations - Very limited ability to conduct experiments (ethics) - Difficult to assess exposure as they live in both aquatic and terrestrial environments 34  Effect Effects: Observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation Sophie Campiche, EcotoxCentre DNA Gene expression Behaviour Mortality Abundance Ecosystem Enzyme activity Growth/weight loss Reproduction Diversity functions 35 Bioaccumulation Fertility Effects: Effects Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services In natural systems, organisms provide one Maintenance of soil structure or more ecosystem functions: One function may be provided by Soil hydrology several organisms Carbon Storage One organism may provide multiple functions Soil detoxification Functional redundancy Organic matter decomposition Interactions between species: Nutrient cycling - e.g. soil functions provided by soil organisms Pest and disease suppression Source of food Ecosystem functions in turn provide ecosystem services, i.e. the specific Images - Le sol forestier vit – diversité et fonctions des organisms vivants du sol. WSL – Notice pour le practicien 2018 contributions that ecosystems make to Mathieu Renaud, EcotoxCentre human well-being. 36 Effects: Effects Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services The links between individual organisms/populations and ecosystem functions and ecosystem services are complex and multiple : → Difficult to study with precision the consequences of pesticide impacts on ecosystem functions and services. Nevertheless, some progress has been done in the last years to identify the role of different organisms in the ecosystem functioning (e.g. Faber et al. 2021, Creamer et al. 2022), some of them with the specific goal of better assessing the impact of pesticides on ecosystems Creamer et al. 2022 (e.g. EFSA PPR 2014,2017, Leenhardt et al. 2023, Dell’Ambrogio et al. 2023) 37 Effects: Effects Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services The available evidence on the effects of pesticides indicates that most categories of ecosystem function are affected in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Strongly evidenced effects (bold in figure) include: regulation of gas exchange (F1), removal of contaminants (F2), resistance to disturbance (F3), production of organic matter (F7), regulation of nutrient cycling (F8), dispersal of propagules (F10), support of biodiversity and biotic interactions (F11), and provisioning and maintenance of habitats (F12): - e.g., effects on populations of photosynthetic organisms and micro-organisms lead to negative effects on gas exchange regulation and contaminant removal. Leenhardt et al. 2023 These functions are essential to ecosystem stability and services. 38 Learning goals 1. Environmental effects What are the effects on living organisms and the ecosystem? What are the interactions between contaminants (pesticides), environmental conditions and living organisms? How can effects be observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation? 2. Mitigation strategies What are the concepts of risk assessment? What is the current status of pesticide authorisation? How are pesticides monitored? What are sustainable alternatives to pesticides? 39 Mitigation: Risk assessment Risk assessment exposure vs hazard Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Establish effects Establish threshold Determine exposure Calculate based on effects and Risk quotient (RQ) = uncertainty Environmental concentration/ Effect-based threshold e.g. Growth inhibition (Chriesbach; Image: Goran Basic / NZZ) Predicted env. conc. (PEC) Risk management Slide: Alexandra Kroll, EcotoxCentre 40 Measured env. conc. (MEC)  Mitigation: Risk assessment - reducing complexity with proxy organisms Risk assessment Top consumers Secondary consumers «Basic data» © Prof. David Lavigne Primary consumers Fish Crustaceans (Daphnids) Primary producers Algae, higher plants 41 Slide: Alexandra Kroll, EcotoxCentre Mitigation: Risk assessment Risk assessment Assumptions: The function of an ecosystem depends on its structure (organisms) Sensitivity of an ecosystem depends on the most sensitive species → Protect the weakest level in the trophic chain Effects can be extrapolated from laboratory experiments to the environment Uncertainties due to extrapolation (e.g. from laboratory to field situation, from one model species to the ecosystem) → Application of an assessment factor to account for uncertainties 42 Mitigation: Risk assessment hazard identification exposure acceptable effect concentration concentration or Comparison + 43 Slide: Janine Wong, EcotoxCentre Assessment factor  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation – Plant protection products (PPP) Legislation on pesticides (focus plant protection products) in the EU Regulatory authority: European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) − Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 for active substances − Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 for formulated products Should ensure that there are no adverse effects following the release of PPPs into the environment Requires standard (eco)toxicological tests for placing on the market of each active substance/formulation Member States provide the dossiers for the substance evaluation Switzerland: Mainly follows EU directives Regulatory authority: Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office 44  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation - Biocides Legislation on biocides in the EU (urban, veterinary…) Authority: European Chemical Agency (ECHA) Regulates new and existing chemicals on the market: - all substances > 1 tonne/year to be evaluated within 11 years, depending on production volume REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Requires standard (eco)toxicological tests for placing on the market of each active substance/formulation → As a result, a substance may be registered under both regulations if used as a PPP and as a biocide, and may have different requirements depending on its use. 45  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation – Plant protection products (PPP) Legislation Requires standard (eco)toxicological tests for placing on the market Earthworm Collembola Folsomia Nitrogen ≥ 6 six plant families Eisenia fetida candida and soil mite transformation covering mono- and Hypoaspis aculeifer dicotyledons For soil treatments For all a.s. & applied directly as spray For all a.s. & For all a.s. & formulations or solid formulation formulations formulations Acceptable effect concentration 46  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation – Plant protection products (PPP) hazard identification exposure acceptable effect concentration concentration Toxicity Exposure Ratio (TER) 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 TER > 5 TER < 5 risk negligible risk non-negligible further tests, 47 Slide: Janine Wong, EcotoxCentre risk reduction measures  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation – Plant protection products (PPP) and biocides Legislation in EU: Authorisation of pesticides is based on a prospective approach (i.e. before they are placed on the market) − Each substance is tested individually − On a limited number of surrogate species − On a few standard ecotoxicolgical responses − Under controlled laboratory conditions Is this enough to prevent potential environmental effects? 48  Authorization Mitigation: Authorisation – Plant protection products (PPP) Legislation in EU: Neonicotinoids: risks to bees confirmed | EFSA Case study: Neonicotinoids Prospective risk assessment carried out as part of the authorisation shows no potential risk Neonicotinoids enter into the market and are very succesful: − Easy to use − Highly effective − Expected to be poorly persistent in the environment − Presumed to be selective only on pest insects → After years of intensive use at global scale, evidence of negative impacts on a wide range of other non-target species 49 → Most dramatic effects: decline in bee populations  Monitoring Monitoring How can we be sure that there will be no adverse effects? In addition to the prospective approach, a retrospective approach is useful to investigate effects under real exposure scenarios. Environmental monitoring: − Chemical monitoring: pesticide concentrations − Biological monitoring: effects on living organisms and ecosystems https://www.inrae.fr/ 50  Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring in the EU is more established for the aquatic compartment The EU Water Framework Directive has the general goals of: − Protect and restore water and ensure its long-term and sustainable use − Monitor the quality of water bodies (e.g. lakes, streams, rivers) − Ensure that they are of good biological, hydromorphological, physico- chemical, chemical quality Chemical monitoring: EQS = “the concentration of a − List of priority and hazardous substances for which Environmental Quality pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which Standards (EQS) will be derived according to a common implementation should not be exceeded in order to strategy (EC 2011) protect human health and the environment" (EC 2010) − Measured concentrations must be compared to (and should not exceed) with EQS − EQS are more developed for surface water, less for sediments and even less Derived from risk for groundwater assessment based on (eco)tox data 51  Monitoring Monitoring: Water Water monitoring in Switzerland mainly follows EU directives: − Federal Act on Water Protection (GSchG, SR 814.20) − Water Protection Ordinance (GSchV, 814.201) -→ Annex 2 sets numerical requirements (maximum Modul Stufen Konzept concentrations) for several pesticides: ▪ Specific – more ecotoxic relevant – EQS for 19 substances ▪ More general value of 0.1 µg/l for other substances Modular Stepwise Procedure (MSK) developed to assess the hydrological, biological, chemical and ecotoxicological status of surface waters For sediments, this has recently been implemented through a strategy for the routine assessment of the chemical status of sediments: − List of 20 priority substances and proposed EQS for them including 4 pesticides (diuron, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, tebuconazole) 52  Monitoring Monitoring: Soil Monitoring is less established in the EU for the Soil monitoring law: EU on the pathway to healthy soils by 2050 - terrestrial compartment Consilium No legal framework for soil monitoring yet but… A proposal for an European Soil Monitoring law has just been accepted − More than 60% of EU soils are degraded − Ultimate goal: all soils in healthy condition by 2050 − Specific goals: ▪ Assess the health status of European soils using a range of indicators ▪ Pollution indicators include some heavy metals but not organic pesticides https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/es dacviewer/euso-dashboard/ 53  Monitoring Monitoring: Soil Soil monitoring in Switzerland is mainly based on the following EU directives: − Ordinance on the Remediation of Polluted Sites (ORP, AltlV SR 814.680, 1998) − Ordinance on Soil Pollution (VBBo, 814.12, 1998) → Annexes 1 and 2 set indicative, testing and remediation limit values for heavy metals and a few organic substances in soils. ▪ Largely based on human toxicology and no values for pesticides (except copper). However, Switzerland is in the process of developing a federal action plan for the reduction and sustainable use of plant protection products (AP- PPP) (Swiss Federal Council, 2017). − Routine chemical monitoring of PPP residues is being developed. − A proposal for the development of EQS for pesticides in soil has been published. together with a list of 10 priority pesticides for which EQS will be dveloped. − A proposal for biological indicators of pesticide effects is currently 54 under development.  Monitoring Monitoring: Biological indicators Biological indicators (or bioindicators) are "living organisms such as plants, plankton, animals and microbes that are used to screen the health of natural ecosystems in the environment" (Parmar et al. 2016). Bioindicators are tools that can be used to measure a response to a change in the environment (e.g. pollution). The measured response should be − Relevant, e.g. playing a role in ecosystem functioning − Sensitive, e.g. responding to pesticide stress − Relatively well known, so that the response can be interpreted in relation to a 'normal' response. 55  Monitoring Monitoring: Biological indicators Non-exhaustive list of promising bio-indicators of pesticide exposure in soil Indicator Sensitivity Example of endpoint Adapted from Renaud et al. 2024 Plants Potentially mainly to herbicides Yield (in agricultural field), diversity of non-target plants Annelidae Generally mainly to fungicides Earthworm or enchytraeid abundance Microarthropods Mainly insecticides, collembola among the most Collembola abundance sensitive groups of soil fauna (Joimel et al. 2022, de Lima e Silva et al. 2017; Natal da-Luz et al. 2019) Nematodes Highly responsive to pesticides (Haegerbaeumer Nematode diversity, maturity index et al. 2019; Höss et al. 2022). Microorganisms Complex response depending on the function, Community assessment and processes related to nitrogen cycle sensitive identification of functional guilds (Karpouzas et al. 2022, Walder et al. 2022) (nitrification) Mycorrhizae Generally sensitive to pesticides (Edlinger et al. Spore germination, root colonisation 56 2022; Riedo et al. 2021)  Monitoring Monitoring: Biological indicators Non-exhaustive list of promising bio-indicators of pesticide exposure in soil Indicator Sensitivity Example of endpoint Adapted from Renaud et al. 2024 Plants Potentially mainly to herbicides Yield (in agricultural field), diversity of non-target plants Annelidae Generally mainly to fungicides Earthworm or enchytraeid abundance Microarthropods Mainly insecticides, collembola among the most Collembola abundance sensitive groups of soil fauna (Joimel et al. 2022, de Lima e Silva et al. 2017; Natal da-Luz et al. 2019) Nematodes Highly responsive to pesticides (Haegerbaeumer Nematode diversity, maturity index et al. 2019; Höss et al. 2022). Microorganisms Complex response depending on the function, Community assessment and processes related to nitrogen cycle sensitive identification of functional guilds (Karpouzas et al. 2022, Walder et al. 2022) (nitrification) Mycorrhizae Generally sensitive to pesticides (Edlinger et al. Spore germination, root colonisation 57 2022; Riedo et al. 2021)  Monitoring Monitoring: Biological indicators – Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) Phylum Glomeromycota Symbiosis with ~80% of terrestrial Riedo et al., ES&T (2021) plants including most major crops Exchange of carboydrates for Photo courtesy of Ryan Geil, published with kind permission from Peterson et al. (2004) and NRC press, nutrients © Canadian Science Publishing or its licensors - AMF + AMF © Franz Bender Enhance nutrient uptake Increase drought tolerance Köhl & van der Heijden, 2016. Agridea. Improve soil structure 58 Sustainable pest control: Alternatives to pesticides 1. Biopesticides: Sources: − Microorganisms (e.g. Bacillus thuringensis, Spinosad: insecticides) − Plants (e.g. essential oils: repellents, insecticides, fungicides …) − Animals (e.g. fatty acids: insecticide) − Minerals (e.g. kaolin: barrier film to protect fruits from insect pests) Advantages (in most cases): − Less persistent in the environment than synthetic pesticides − More targeted than synthetic pesticides − Less toxic to humans/environment than synthetic pesticides Limitations: − Demand and availability still poor → higher initial cost − Less efficient − Require more knowledge/research 59 Sustainable pest control: Alternatives to pesticides 2. Agroecology: Promoting the natural functions of ecosystems rather than controlling them, e.g: − Mulching/mechanical weeding instead of herbicides (Goetsch 1995) − Plant associations (Goetsch 1995) − Enhancing plant natural defences with plant growth promoting bacteria (De Souza 2015) − Mitigating disease with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Mishra et al. 2018) Advantages (in most cases): − Non-toxic to the environment − Mimics/facilitates natural ecosystems − Can promote soil fertility and nature restoration Limitations: − Large amount of knowledge required − More reasearch needed − Sometimes labour intensive 60 Sustainable pest control: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) Biopesticides: Agroecology: Field inoculations Favourable management practices Disease control Rhizoglomus irregulare SAF22 Fertiliser reduction Crop rotation Köhl & van der Heijden, 2016. Agridea. Enhance nutrient uptake No/reduced tillage Cover crop © Natacha Bodenhausen Increase drought tolerance Improve soil structure 61 Sustainable pest control: Alternatives to pesticides Conclusions: Both, biopesticide and agroecology, are promising and complementary alternatives to synthetic pesticides but not yet always equally efficient More support from research and policy is still needed to be able to implement such practices and replace completely pesticide use 62 Summary The effects of pesticides on living organisms and the ecosystem depend on the interaction between pesticide properties, environmental conditions and organism traits. Effects can and should be observed/measured at different levels of biological organisation (cells, organs, organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems). Additional complexity in assessing pesticide effects due to direct and indirect effects, exposure to mixtures of compounds and multiple stressors in the environment. Risk assessment includes effect determination, threshold setting, exposure determination, risk quotient (RQ = environmental concentration/effect-based threshold) calculation. Authorisation requires standard (eco)toxicological testing for the placing on the market of each active substance/formulation (prospective approach). Chemical and biological monitoring: Retrospective approach is useful to investigate effects under real exposure scenarios. Alternatives to pesticides for sustainable pest management: Biopesticides, agroecology 63  Literature Amorim, M.J.B., Römbke, J., Scheffczyk, A. et al. Effects of Different Soil Types on the Collembolans Folsomia candida and Hypogastrura assimilis Using the Herbicide Phenmedipham. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 49, 343–352 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-0220-z Boatman N.D., Brickle N.W., Hart J.D., Milsom T.P., Morris A.J., Murray A.W.A., Murray K.A., Robertson P.A., 2004. Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. Ibis, 146, 131-143. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00347.x Casado, C., Wildi, M., Ferrari, Benoît J.D., Werner, I. 2022. Strategy for sediment quality assessment in Switzerland. Technical report prepared for the Federal Office of the Environment. Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Lausanne. R.E. Creamer, J.M. Barel, G. Bongiorno, M.J. Zwetsloot, The life of soils: Integrating the who and how of multifunctionality, Soil Biol. Biochem. 166 (2022) 108561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108561 Dell’Ambrogio Gilda. 2016. Impact des néonicotinoïdes sur le collembole Folsomia fimetaria dans les sols agricoles. Master Thesis, Universités de Lausanne et Neuchâtel Souza Rd, Ambrosini A, Passaglia LM. Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils. Genet Mol Biol. 2015 Dec;38(4):401-19. doi: 10.1590/S1415-475738420150053. Epub 2015 Nov 3. PMID: 26537605; PMCID: PMC4763327 Gilda Dell’Ambrogio, Mathieu Renaud, Sophie Campiche, Mireia Marti-Roura, Benoit J.D. Ferrari. 2023 Selection of a bioindicator toolbox for monitoring effects of plant protection product residues. Part 1 - Linking ecological soil functions and soil organisms. Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Dübendorf and Lausanne, Switzerland; 56 pp EC, European Commission. 2010. Guidance on chemical monitoring of sediment and biota under the Water Framework Directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 25. Technical Report- 2010-3991. Office for Official Publications in the European Communities, Luxembourg EC, European Commission. 2011. European Technical Guidance document (TGD) for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Report 2011-055. Office for Official Publications in the European Communities, Luxembourg A, Lee KE Joimel, Sophie, Juliette Chassain, Maxime Artru, and Juliette Faburé. 2022. “Collembola are among the most pesticide ‐ sensitive soil fauna groups : a meta ‐ analysis literature search.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 00(00):1–9. doi: 10.1002/etc.5428 64  Literature Karpouzas, Dimitrios G., Zisis Vryzas, and Fabrice Martin-Laurent. 2022. “Pesticide soil microbial toxicity: setting the scene for a new pesticide risk assessment for soil microorganisms (IUPAC technical report).” Pure and Applied Chemistry 94(10):1161–94 doi: 10.1515/pac-2022-0201 de Lima e Silva, Cláudia, Nicola Brennan, Jitske M. Brouwer, Daniël Commandeur, Rudo A. Verweij, and Cornelis A. M. van Gestel. 2017. “Comparative toxicity of imidacloprid and thiacloprid to different species of soil invertebrates.” Ecotoxicology 26(4):555–64. doi: 10.1007/s10646-017-1790-7 EFSA PPR Panel, Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants, EFSA J. 12 (2014) 1–163. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3800 EFSA PPR Panel, C. Ockleford, P. Adriaanse, P. Berny, T. Brock, S. Duquesne, S. Grilli, A.F. Hernandez‐Jerez, S.H. Bennekou, M. Klein, T. Kuhl, R. Laskowski, K. Machera, O. Pelkonen, S. Pieper, M. Stemmer, I. Sundh, I. Teodorovic, A. Tiktak, C.J. Topping, G. Wolterink, P. Craig, F. de Jong, B. Manachini, P. Sousa, K. Swarowsky, D. Auteri, M. Arena, S. Rob, Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for in‐soil organisms, EFSA J. 15 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4690 J.H.H. Faber, S. Marshall, A.R.R. Brown, A. Holt, P.J.J. van den Brink, L. Maltby, Identifying ecological production functions for use in ecosystem services- based environmental risk assessment of chemicals, Sci. Total Environ. 791 (2021) 146409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146409 Gibbons D., Morrissey C., Mineau P., 2015. A review of the direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on vertebrate wildlife. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22 (1), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3180-5 Höss, Sebastian, Nicola Reiff, Jennifer Asekunowo, and Johannes Helder. 2022. “Nematode community of a natural grassland responds sensitively to the broad-spectrum fungicide mancozeb in soil microcosms.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 41(10):2420–30. doi: 10.1002/etc.5427 Haegerbaeumer, Arne, Ricarda Raschke, Nicola Reiff, Walter Traunspurger, and Sebastian Höss. 2019. “Comparing the effects of fludioxonil on non- target soil invertebrates using ecotoxicological methods from single-species bioassays to model ecosystems.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 183(January):109596. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109596. Haines-Young, R. and M.B. Potschin (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. (www.cices.eu) Humann-Guilleminot S., Laurent S., Bize P., Roulin A., Glauser G., Helfenstein F., 2021. Contamination by neonicotinoid insecticides in barn owls (Tyto alba) and Alpine swifts (Tachymarptis melba). Science of the Total Environment, 785, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147403 65  Literature ISO 19204. 2017. “Soil Quality — procedure for site-specific ecological risk assessment of soil contamination (soil quality TRIAD approach).” ISO- International Organization for Standardization, Genève Klára Kobetičová, Jakub Hofman, Ivan Holoubek, Avoidance response of Enchytraeus albidus in relation to carbendazim ageing, Environmental Pollution, Volume 157, Issue 2, 2009, 704-706, ISSN 0269-7491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.09.032 Köhler H.R., Triebskorn R., 2013. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: Can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science, 341 (6147), 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237591 Leenhardt S., Mamy L., Pesce S., Sanchez W., 2023. Impacts des produits phytopharmaceutiques sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques, Versailles, Éditions Quæ, 184 Lutz, Stefanie, Natacha Bodenhausen, Julia Hess, Alain Valzano-Held, Jan Waelchli, Gabriel Deslandes-Hérold, Klaus Schlaeppi, and Marcel G. A. van der Heijden. 2023. “Soil microbiome indicators can predict crop growth response to large-scale inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.” Nature Microbiology 8(12):2277–89. doi: 10.1038/s41564-023-01520-w Maderthaner, Michael, Maureen Weber, Eszter Takács, Mária Mörtl, Friedrich Leisch, Jörg Römbke, Pascal Querner, Ronnie Walcher, Edith Gruber, András Székács, and Johann G. Zaller. 2020. “Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(14):17280–89. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-08213-5 Mallmann, Gilvani Carla, José Paulo Sousa, Ingvar Sundh, Silvia Pieper, Maria Arena, Sonia Purin da Cruz, and Osmar Klauberg-Filho. 2018. “placing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the risk assessment test battery of Plant Protection Products (PPPs).” Ecotoxicology27(7):809–18. doi: 10.1007/s10646-018-1946-0 Mann R.M., Hyne R.V., Choung C.B., Wilson S.P., 2009. Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: Review of the risks in a complex environment. Environmental Pollution, 157 (11), 2903-2927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.05.015 Mireia Marti-Roura, Gilda Dell’Ambrogio, Sophie Campiche, Janine Wong, Marion Junghans, Mathieu Renaud, Benoit J.D. Ferrari. 2023 Methodology proposal for the derivation of Soil Guideline Values for Plant Protection Product residues. Part 2 - Recommendations for the derivation of Soil Guideline Values. Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Dübendorf and Lausanne, Switzerland; 57 pp 66 Literature Mishra V., Ellouze W., Howard R.J. Utility of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi for Improved Production and Disease Mitigation in Organic and Hydroponic Greenhouse Crops. J. Hortic. 2018;5:1–10. doi: 10.4172/2376-0354.1000237 Natal-da-Luz, Tiago, Tom Gevaert, Carla Pereira, Daniela Alves, Maria Arena, and José Paulo Sousa. 2019. “Should oral exposure in hypoaspis aculeifer tests be considered in order to keep them in tier i test battery for ecological risk assessment of PPPs?” Environmental Pollution 244:871–76. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.113 Ockleford, Colin, Paulien Adriaanse, Philippe Berny, Theodorus Brock, Sabine Duquesne, Sandro Grilli, Antonio F. Hernandez‐Jerez, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Michael Klein, Thomas Kuhl, Ryszard Laskowski, Kyriaki Machera, Olavi Pelkonen, Silvia Pieper, Michael Stemmer, Ingvar Sundh, Ivana Teodorovic, Aaldrik Tiktak, Chris J. Topping, Gerrit Wolterink, Peter Craig, Frank de Jong, Barbara Manachini, Paulo Sousa, Klaus Swarowsky, Domenica Auteri, Maria Arena, and Smith Rob. 2017. “Scientific opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of Plant Protection Products for in‐soil organisms.” EFSA Journal 15(2). doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4690. Ockleford C., Adriaanse P., Berny P., Brock T., Duquesne S., Grilli S., Hernandez-Jerez A.F., Bennekou S.H., Klein M., Kuhl T., Laskowski R., Machera K., Pelkonen O., Pieper S., Stemmer M., Sundh I., Teodorovic I., Tiktak A., Topping C.J., Wolterink G., Aldrich A., Berg C., Ortiz-Santaliestra M., Weir S., Streissl F., Smith R.H., EFSA Panel Plant Protection Products and their Residues, 2018. Scientific opinion on the state of the science on pesticide risk assessment for amphibians and reptiles. EFSA Journal, 16 (2), 301, e05125. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5125 Parmar, T. K., Rawtani, D., & Agrawal, Y. K. (2016). Bioindicators: the natural indicator of environmental pollution. Frontiers in Life Science, 9(2), 110– 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2016.1162753 Pignatello, J.J., Nason, S.L. (2020). Importance of Soil Properties and Processes on Bioavailability of Organic Compounds. In: Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Parsons, J.R. (eds) Bioavailability of Organic Chemicals in Soil and Sediment. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_510 Renaud, M. Campiche, S., Dell’Ambrogio, G., Ferrari, B.J.D. 2024. Selection of a bioindicator toolbox for monitoring effects of plant protection product residues. Part 2 – Scoring of actors and bioindicator methods. Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology, Dübendorf and Lausanne, Switzerland Riedo, Judith, Felix E. Wettstein, Andrea Rosch, Chantal Herzog, Samiran Banerjee, Lucie Buchi, Raphael Charles, Daniel Wachter, Fabrice Martin- Laurent, Thomas D. Bucheli, Florian Walder, and Marcel G. A. Van Der Heijden. 2021. “Widespread occurrence of pesticides in organically managed agricultural soils-the ghost of a conventional agricultural past?” Environmental Science and Technology 55(5):2919–28. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c06405 67 Literature Solé, M., Brendel, S., Aldrich, A. et al. Assessing in-field pesticide effects under European regulation and its implications for biodiversity: a workshop report. Environ Sci Eur 36, 153 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00977-8 Taylor R.L., Maxwell B.D., Boik R.J., 2006. Indirect effects of herbicides on bird food resources and beneficial arthropods. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 116 (3-4), 157-164. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.01.012 Traas, T., Leeuwen, C.V. (2007). Ecotoxicological Effects. In: Leeuwen, C.v., Vermeire, T. (eds) Risk Assessment of Chemicals. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6102-8_7 Walder, Florian, Marc W. Schmid, Judith Riedo, Alain Y. Valzano-Held, Samiran Banerjee, Lucie Büchi, Thomas D. Bucheli, and Marcel G. A. van der Heijden. 2022. “Soil microbiome signatures are associated with pesticide residues in arable landscapes.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry 174(September):108830. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108830 Zaller, Johann G., Nina König, Alexandra Tiefenbacher, Yoko Muraoka, Pascal Querner, Andreas Ratzenböck, Michael Bonkowski, and Robert Koller. 2016. “Pesticide seed dressings can affect the activity of various soil organisms and reduce decomposition of plant material.” BMC Ecology 16(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12898-016-0092-x Voisin, A. S., Fasel, M., Beauvais, R., Kienle, C., Ferrari, B., & Werner, I. (2023). Biomarqueurs moléculaires. Application pour la surveillance de la qualité de l'eau avec la truite de rivière. Aqua & Gas, 103(4), 42-48 Wu C.H., Lin C.L., Wang S.E., Lu C.W., 2020. Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide, on the echolocation system of insectivorous bats. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 163, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.10.010 68 Web references https://www.xxx.com, consulted the https://www.flaticon.com/, all icons created by Freepik https://www.ecotoxcentre.ch/, consulted the 11.11.2024 https://www.kuritaamerica.com/, consulted the 15.11.2024 https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdacviewer/euso-dashboard/, consulted the 18.11.2024 https://www.inrae.fr/, consulted the 18.11.2024 69