LandS: Vegetation modeling based on Ellenberg's ecological indicator values.

We present LandS, a new version of the Gras Model. The Gras Model was designed to simulate grassland development at local scales based on Ecological Indicator Values (EIVs) for different grassland management practices. In LandS, we complemented the existing set of EIVs with a second set representing several environmental factors: light, moisture, temperature, soil pH and nitrogen, also known as Ellenberg's EIVs. These new EIVs make the model more versatile and applicable to a wide range of sites across Central Europe. For example, it can be used on sites with dry or moist, acidic or calcareous soils in grassland or forest environments. We have also improved the implementation of the model by introducing version control and moving species and site-specific variables to data input files, so that species sets can be easily swapped for application in new study sites. We demonstrate the use and behavior of the model in two simulation experiments exploring interactions mediated by Ellenberg's EIVs, using input files to apply the model to different landscapes. We also provide detailed guidance on species selection and calibration, and discuss model limitations.•LandS is an improved version of the GraS Model for simulating vegetation development at the local scale.•It includes Ellenberg-like indicator values for environmental variables for inverse prediction of species occurrence and composition.•The model is now flexible enough to be used for study sites throughout Central Europe, using data input files for species initialization.

Drivers and pressures behind insect decline in Central and Western Europe based on long-term monitoring data.

Insect declines have been discussed intensively among experts, policymakers, and the public. Albeit, decreasing trends have been reported for a long time for various regions in Europe and North America, but the controversial discussion over the role of specific drivers and pressures still remains. A reason for these uncertainties lies within the complex networks of inter-dependent biotic and abiotic factors as well as anthropogenic activities that influence habitats, communities, populations, and individual organisms. Many recent publications aim to identify both the extent of the observed declines and potential drivers. With this literature analysis, we provide an overview of the drivers and pressures and their inter-relationships, which were concluded in the scientific literature, using some of the best-studied insect groups as examples. We conducted a detailed literature evaluation of publications on Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Lepidoptera trends with data for at least 6 years in countries of Central and Western Europe, with a focus on agricultural landscapes. From the 82 publications identified as relevant, we extracted all reported trends and classified the respective factors described according to the DPSIR model. Further, we analysed the level of scientific verification (presumed vs correlated vs examined) within these papers for these cited stressors. The extracted trends for both species groups underline the reported overall declining trend. Whether negative or positive trends were reported in the papers, our semi-quantitative analysis shows that changes in insect populations are primarily anthropogenically driven by agriculture, climate change, nature conservation activities, urbanisation, and other anthropogenic activities. Most of the identified pressures were found to act on habitat level, only a fraction attributed to direct effects to the insects. While our analysis gives an overview of existing research concerning abundance and biodiversity trends of carabids and lepidopterans, it also shows gaps in scientific data in this area, in particular in monitoring the pressures along with the monitoring of abundance trends. The scientific basis for assessing biodiversity changes in the landscape is essential to help all stakeholders involved to shape, e.g. agriculture and other human activities, in a more sustainable way, balancing human needs such as food production with conservation of nature.

A Field Study Method as a Potential Higher Tier Option to Refine Herbicide Risk Assessment for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants.

During herbicide spray application, nontarget terrestrial plants (NTTPs) growing in the off-field area need to be protected from unacceptable effects of herbicide drift. The risk of such unintended effects is assessed in order to establish whether a particular use can be approved, possibly in combination with mitigation measures. In Europe, the risk of herbicide treatment to NTTPs is assessed on the basis of tier 2 studies done under controlled conditions in greenhouses. Following the concept of a tiered testing approach, higher tier field studies under more realistic conditions could be used to refine the risk assessment. No current guideline for conducting higher tier NTTP field studies is available. We developed an NTTP higher tier field study method done on an experimental plant community established by sowing of a seed mixture. The setup was optimized in 3 pilot field studies and subsequently used for a definitive study testing effects of the herbicide iofensulfuron-sodium. Results show that the method can be regarded as a suitable higher tier option for assessing effects of herbicides on NTTPs. Growth of species from the soil seed bank cannot be avoided and has to be carefully considered when evaluating results. Adaptations of the study design may be necessary when testing different herbicides. Community-level endpoints were at the same level as single-species endpoints. Results of the field study were compared to standard greenhouse study results for the same herbicide. No observed effect rates (NOERs) in the field were about a factor of 10 higher and show that the current tier 2 risk assessment for NTTPs can be regarded as protective in this case. Whether the present field study design and the assessed endpoints can be used in higher tier risk assessment of NTTPs depends on selection of the specific protection goal and requires further discussion. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:691-705. © 2020 Bayer AG. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).