Literature DB >> 21733564

Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides.

Karin M Nienstedt1, Theo C M Brock, Joke van Wensem, Mark Montforts, Andy Hart, Alf Aagaard, Anne Alix, Jos Boesten, Stephanie K Bopp, Colin Brown, Ettore Capri, Valery Forbes, Herbert Köpp, Matthias Liess, Robert Luttik, Lorraine Maltby, José P Sousa, Franz Streissl, Anthony R Hardy.   

Abstract

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21733564     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  33 in total

1.  SSD-based rating system for the classification of pesticide risk on biodiversity.

Authors:  Serenella Sala; Sonia Migliorati; Gianna S Monti; Marco Vighi
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2012-01-22       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Pesticide authorization in the EU-environment unprotected?

Authors:  Sebastian Stehle; Ralf Schulz
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Optimising environmental risk assessments: Accounting for ecosystem services helps to translate broad policy protection goals into specific operational ones for environmental risk assessments.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Jörg Romeis; Robert Luttik; Angelo Maggiore; Joe N Perry; Reinhilde Schoonjans; Franz Streissl; José V Tarazona; Theo C M Brock
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 4.  EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Jaime Aguilera; Zoltán Diveki; Ana Gomes; Yi Liu; Claudia Paoletti; Patrick du Jardin; Lieve Herman; Joe N Perry; Elisabeth Waigmann
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 2.788

5.  Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology.

Authors:  Yann Devos; Olivier Sanvido; Joyce Tait; Alan Raybould
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 2.788

6.  A unified approach for protecting listed species and ecosystem services in isolated wetlands using community-level protection goals.

Authors:  Sandy Raimondo; Leah Sharpe; Leah Oliver; Kelly R McCaffrey; S Thomas Purucker; Sumathy Sinnathamby; Jeffrey M Minucci
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 7.  A framework for predicting impacts on ecosystem services from (sub)organismal responses to chemicals.

Authors:  Valery E Forbes; Chris J Salice; Bjorn Birnir; Randy J F Bruins; Peter Calow; Virginie Ducrot; Nika Galic; Kristina Garber; Bret C Harvey; Henriette Jager; Andrew Kanarek; Robert Pastorok; Steve F Railsback; Richard Rebarber; Pernille Thorbek
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.742

8.  Evaluation of FOCUS surface water pesticide concentration predictions and risk assessment of field-measured pesticide mixtures-a crop-based approach under Mediterranean conditions.

Authors:  Ana Santos Pereira; Michiel A Daam; Maria José Cerejeira
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Linking pesticide marketing authorisations with environmental impact assessments through realistic landscape risk assessment paradigms.

Authors:  Franz Streissl; Mark Egsmose; José V Tarazona
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.823

10.  Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe.

Authors:  Paul J Van den Brink; Alistair B A Boxall; Lorraine Maltby; Bryan W Brooks; Murray A Rudd; Thomas Backhaus; David Spurgeon; Violaine Verougstraete; Charmaine Ajao; Gerald T Ankley; Sabine E Apitz; Kathryn Arnold; Tomas Brodin; Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles; Jennifer Chapman; Jone Corrales; Marie-Agnès Coutellec; Teresa F Fernandes; Jerker Fick; Alex T Ford; Gemma Giménez Papiol; Ksenia J Groh; Thomas H Hutchinson; Hank Kruger; Jussi V K Kukkonen; Stefania Loutseti; Stuart Marshall; Derek Muir; Manuel E Ortiz-Santaliestra; Kai B Paul; Andreu Rico; Ismael Rodea-Palomares; Jörg Römbke; Tomas Rydberg; Helmut Segner; Mathijs Smit; Cornelis A M van Gestel; Marco Vighi; Inge Werner; Elke I Zimmer; Joke van Wensem
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.