The use of copper as plant protection product contributes to environmental contamination and resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

Copper-based plant protection products (PPPs) are widely used in both conventional and organic farming, and to a lesser extent for non-agricultural maintenance of gardens, greenspaces, and infrastructures. The use of copper PPPs adds to environmental contamination by this trace element. This paper aims to review the contribution of these PPPs to the contamination of soils and waters by copper in the context of France (which can be extrapolated to most of the European countries), and the resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, as well as on ecosystem functions. It was produced in the framework of a collective scientific assessment on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France. Current science shows that copper, which persists in soils, can partially transfer to adjacent aquatic environments (surface water and sediment) and ultimately to the marine environment. This widespread contamination impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functions, chiefly through its effects on phototrophic and heterotrophic microbial communities, and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Its effects on other biological groups and biotic interactions remain relatively under-documented.

Recommendations to reduce the streetlight effect and gray areas limiting the knowledge of the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity.

Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them.

Linking ecotoxicological effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions to impairment of ecosystem services is a challenge: an illustration with the case of plant protection products.

There is growing interest in using the ecosystem services framework for environmental risk assessments of chemicals, including plant protection products (PPPs). Although this topic is increasingly discussed in the recent scientific literature, there is still a substantial gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid evaluation of potential ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services. This was recently highlighted by a collective scientific assessment (CSA) performed by 46 scientific experts who analyzed the international science on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. Here, we first point out the main obstacles to better linking knowledge on the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecological processes with ecosystem functions and services. Then, we go on to propose and discuss possible pathways for related improvements. We describe the main processes governing the relationships between biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem functions in response to effects of PPP, and we define categories of ecosystem functions that could be directly linked with the ecological processes used as functional endpoints in investigations on the ecotoxicology of PPPs. We then explore perceptions on the possible links between these categories of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services among a sub-panel of the scientific experts from various fields of environmental science. We find that these direct and indirect linkages still need clarification. This paper, which reflects the difficulties faced by the multidisciplinary group of researchers involved in the CSA, suggests that the current gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid potential evaluation of ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services could be partially addressed if concepts and definitions related to ecological processes, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services were more widely accepted and shared within the ecotoxicology community. Narrowing this gap would help harmonize and extend the science that informs decision-making and policy-making, and ultimately help to better address the trade-off between social benefits and environmental losses caused by the use of PPPs.

Impacts of neonicotinoids on biodiversity: a critical review.

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, but they have raised numerous concerns regarding their effects on biodiversity. Thus, the objective of this work was to do a critical review of the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air, biota) by neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam) and of their impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are very frequently detected in soils and in freshwater, and they are also found in the air. They have only been recently monitored in coastal and marine environments, but some studies already reported the presence of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in transitional or semi-enclosed ecosystems (lagoons, bays, and estuaries). The contamination of the environment leads to the exposure and to the contamination of non-target organisms and to negative effects on biodiversity. Direct impacts of neonicotinoids are mainly reported on terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., pollinators, natural enemies, earthworms) and vertebrates (e.g., birds) and on aquatic invertebrates (e.g., arthropods). Impacts on aquatic vertebrate populations and communities, as well as on microorganisms, are less documented. In addition to their toxicity to directly exposed organisms, neonicotinoid induce indirect effects via trophic cascades as demonstrated in several species (terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates). However, more data are needed to reach firmer conclusions and to get a clearer picture of such indirect effects. Finally, we identified specific knowledge gaps that need to be filled to better understand the effects of neonicotinoids on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms, as well as on ecosystem services associated with these biotas.

Main conclusions and perspectives from the collective scientific assessment of the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecosystem services along the land-sea continuum in France and French overseas territories.

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

A meta-analysis of ecotoxicological models used for plant protection product risk assessment before their placing on the market.

Before their placing on the market, the safety of plant protection products (PPP) towards both human and animal health, and the environment has to be assessed using experimental and modelling approaches. Models are crucial tools for PPP risk assessment and some even help to avoid animal testing. This review investigated the use of modelling approaches in the ecotoxicology section of PPP active substance assessment reports prepared by the authorities and opened to consultation from 2011 to 2021 in the European Union. Seven categories of models (Structure-Activity, ToxicoKinetic, ToxicoKinetic-ToxicoDynamic, Species Sensitivity Distribution, population, community, and mixture) were searched for into the reports of 317 active substances. At least one model category was found for 44 % of the investigated active substances. The most detected models were Species Sensitivity Distribution, Structure-Activity and ToxicoKinetic for 27, 21 and 15 % of the active substances, respectively. The use of modelling was of particular importance for conventional active substances such as sulfonylurea or carbamates contrary to microorganisms and plant derived substances. This review also highlighted a strong imbalance in model usage among the biological groups considered in the European Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For example, models were more often used for aquatic than for terrestrial organisms (e.g., birds, mammals). Finally, a gap between the set of models used in reports and those existing in the literature was observed highlighting the need for the implementation of more sophisticated models into PPP regulation.

Collective scientific assessment as a relevant tool to inform public debate and policymaking: an illustration about the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Several sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without implementing a new generation of environmental measures to better preserve or restore biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, understanding and addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation is a challenging problem that is not solvable without integrating the best and latest science. It is crucial to enhance the legibility of this knowledge for decision-makers and policymakers following good-practice standards of scientific assessment. This is the main objective of collective scientific assessments (CSAs), as carried out by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE) since the early 2000s following a documented procedure to inform public policy and foster public debate on complex interdisciplinary issues. This article describes the main steps of the CSA procedure designed by INRAE's Directorate for Collective Scientific Assessment, Foresight and Advanced Studies, from formulation of the initial question asked by public or para-public bodies (typically ministry divisions or environmental agencies) to wider dissemination of the results and conclusions. This process description is then illustrated through the example of a CSA recently commissioned by three French Ministries (for Ecology, for Research, and for Agriculture) regarding (i) contamination of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems by plant protection products (PPPs); (ii) the resulting effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (iii) possible prevention and mitigation strategies. The capacity of this kind of CSA to inform public debate and policymaking is then exemplified through a description of the main outcomes generated by the latest CSA dealing with the adverse effects of PPPs. We also provide a short overview of some key expectations from the current CSA, with a focus on the recent development of the ecosystem service approach in ecological risk assessments of PPPs in the European Union. This illustration demonstrates that CSAs, which are applicable to a wide variety of complex interdisciplinary questions that are not limited to environmental issues, are a relevant tool to inform public debate and policymaking.