Environmental risk assessment for plant pests: A procedure to evaluate their impacts on ecosystem services

Gilioli, Gianni; Schrader, Gritta; Baker, Richard; Ceglarska, E.; Kertész, Virág; Löveï, Gábor L.; Navajas, María; Rossi, Vittorio; Tramontini, Sara; Lenteren, J.C. van

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.068

Cited by 41 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationships between ecosystem services, biological functions and density, biomass and interactions of species within a community are actively being researched, and the field is rapidly evolving (Chapin et al, 2000;Loreau et al, 2002;Cardinale et al, 2006Cardinale et al, , 2011Cardinale et al, , 2012Naeem et al, 2009;Garbach et al, 2014;Gilioli et al, 2014;Harrison et al, 2014).…”

Section: Relationship Between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ockleford¹

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.

show abstract

Section: Relationship Between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ockleford¹

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the advantages of the ERA approach is that it can be used even if not much information is available Gilioli et al, 2014). However, it needs to be clarified which information is absolutely essential to conduct the ERA-this should be evaluated by a step-by-step examination of data relevant for an ERA.…”

Section: Simplification Of Eramentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At EFSA's request, the Plant Health Panel (PLH) performed an environmental risk assessment (ERA) of the apple snail for the EU and validated the ERA approach presented in the PLH ERA guidance document. Improvements and suggestions for simplification of the ERA are provided. One service-providing unit-shallow fresh water areas-was identified for this ERA. The effects of resistance, resilience and management on snail population dynamics in the short (5 years) and the long term (30 years) were estimated. In line with the PLH ERA guidance rating system, expert judgement was used to evaluate separately the impacts on (i) ecosystem traits, (ii) ecosystem services and (iii) biodiversity components. Snail biomass values were predicted to be higher in the short term than in the long term. For ecosystem services, moderate risk was estimated for genetic resources, climate regulation, pest and disease regulation and pollination in both the short and long term; for food, risk was assessed as moderate in the short term and major in the long term; for water and erosion regulation, risk was assessed as major both in the short term and in the long term; for fresh water, risk was assessed as massive both in the short term and in the long term; and for nutrient cycling and photosynthesis and primary production of macrophytes, risk was assessed as massive in the short term and as major in the long term. For biodiversity components, risk for genetic diversity and native species diversity was estimated as major in both the short and the long term; risk for native habitats was assessed massive in the short term and major in the long term; and for threatened species and habitats of high conservation value, risk was determined as massive in both the short and the long term. In this scientific opinion, when the Panel refers to the apple snail, it refers specifically to Pomacea maculata and to P. canaliculata. As these species are closely related, their population dynamics pattern and potential impacts are assumed by the Panel to be similar.In this document, the Panel presents the ERA of the apple snail for the EU territory, including an analysis and evaluation of the risk assessment methodology applied to the apple snail. In EFSA PLH Panel (2013), the Panel reviewed the current state of the art of the biology and ecology of the apple snail and used a population dynamics model to assess its establishment in terms of density distribution in Europe. The Panel used these results as a starting point for performing the ERA. Conclusions concerning the methodological approach and its simplificationThe PLH ERA guidance includes a detailed procedure with different consecutive steps to assess the impacts of plant pests on ecosystem traits, ecosystem services and biodiversity components. In the current opinion, when performing the assessment, the complete PLH ERA approach was tested to evaluate the different steps described in the ERA guidance. Some aspects of the guidance were modified to improve it, and suggestions were made to simplify th...

show abstract

“…The formulation of SPG options also allows defining what magnitude of effect can be tolerated. The ecosystem service concept has recently been proposed for ERA use, not only for PPPs, but also for other stressors in agro-environments, such as GMOs, invasive alien species [13] or plant pests [14]. Additionally, EFSA issued two related scientific opinions that address the coverage of endangered species and the ecological recovery of non-target organisms in the ERA [15, 16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits of Concern: suggestions for the operationalisation of a concept to determine the relevance of adverse effects in the ERA of GMOs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe European Food Safety Authority proposed a concept for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants in the EU that is based on the definition of thresholds for the acceptability of potential adverse effects on the environment. This concept, called Limits of Concern (LoC), needs to be further refined to be implemented in the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms.MethodsWe analyse and discuss how LoC can be defined for the environmental risk assessment for three different types of genetically modified plants. We outline protection goals relevant to the genetically modified plants in question and discuss existing concepts and suggestions for acceptability thresholds from the environmental risk assessment of different regulatory areas. We make specific recommendations for the setting and use of LoC for each type of genetically modified plant.ResultsThe LoC concept can be suitably applied for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, if the different protection goals in agro-environments are specifically considered. Not only biodiversity protection goals but also agricultural protection goals need to be addressed. The different ecosystem services provided by weeds inside and outside agricultural fields have to be considered for genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Exposure-based LoCs are suggested based on knowledge about dose–effect relationships between maize pollen and non-target Lepidoptera for insect-resistant maize. Due to the long-term nature of biological processes such as spread and establishment, LoCs for genetically modified oilseed rape should be defined for the presence of the genetically modified plant or its genetically modified traits in relevant protection goals.ConclusionsWhen setting LoCs, the focus should be on protection goals which are possibly affected. Potential overlaps of the LoC concept with the ecosystem service concept have to be clarified to harmonise protection levels in the agro-environment for different stressors. If additional impacts on agro-biodiversity resulting from the cultivation of genetically modified plants are to be avoided, then high protection levels and low thresholds for acceptable effects (i.e. LoC) should be set.

show abstract

Environmental risk assessment for plant pests: A procedure to evaluate their impacts on ecosystem services

Cited by 41 publications

References 57 publications

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Scientific Opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU

Limits of Concern: suggestions for the operationalisation of a concept to determine the relevance of adverse effects in the ERA of GMOs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About