Using Reports of Bee Mortality in the Field to Calibrate Laboratory-Derived Pesticide Risk Indices

Mineau, Pierre; Harding, K. M.; Whiteside, Mélanie; Fletcher, M. R.; Garthwaite, David; Knopper, Loren D.

doi:10.1093/ee/37.2.546

Cited by 37 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Modeling of onset was performed by using logistic regressions (0.5 cut-point) with the Logit transformation (Fischer-Rousseau et al, 2009). We used the cut-point (SL 50 ) (e.g., lethal dose in ecotoxicological studies, LD 50 , Mineau et al, 2008) to define, with respect to the observed onset size (SL), 50% of the individuals that show skeletal states 1 or 2 for a given element. The SL 50 for an element, as defined by the logistic model, does not necessarily correspond to the SL at which the skeletal state was observed in individuals.…”

Section: Developmental Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic skeletogenesis in fishes: Insight of exercise training on developmental plasticity

Grünbaum

Cloutier

Vincent

2012

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Through developmental and evolutionary time, organisms respond variably to their environment not only in terms of size and shape but also in terms of timing. Developmental plasticity can potentially act on various aspects of the timing of developmental events (i.e., appearance, cessation, duration, sequence). In this study, we address the developmental plasticity of median fin endoskeleton by using exercise training on newly‐hatched Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Results: Developmental progress of cartilage formation (i.e., chondrification) in all fins is less influenced than ossification by an increase of water velocity. The most responsive elements, meaning those elements with greater onset plasticity owing to a water velocity increase, differ in terms of early versus late developmental events. The most responsive elements are those that chondrify and to a greater extent ossify later in the development. Conclusions: Plasticity is documented for the timing of appearance (i.e., onset) and the timing of transition from cartilage to bone (i.e., transitions of skeletal states) rather than the order of events within a sequence. Similarities of plastic response in developmental patterns could be used as a powerful criterion to strengthen the identification of phenotypic modules. Developmental Dynamics 241:1507–1524, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Developmental Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic skeletogenesis in fishes: Insight of exercise training on developmental plasticity

Grünbaum

Cloutier

Vincent

2012

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aldridge and Hart (1993) did the first analysis of bee incident data to validate the HQ trigger of 50 for spray products in the EU. This analysis was revised by Mineau et al (2008) using a larger dataset from the UK. They collected data on hive poisoning incidents reported in the UK's Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) for the crops oilseed rape and pulses in the UK as well as pesticide use data (area treated and application rate) and data on the physico-chemical properties of the pesticides.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The previous HQ validations (Aldridge and Hart, 1993;Mineau et al, 2008;Thompson and Thorbahn, 2009) were performed using data on reported honey bee poisoning incidents (i.e. records of dead bees at the hive that could be related to pesticide application) for which the magnitude of effect is unknown.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera,Bombusspp. and solitary bees)

2012

EFSA Journal

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PPR Panel was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). Specific protection goals options were suggested based on the ecosystem services approach. The different routes of exposure were analysed in detail for different categories of bees. The existing test guidelines were evaluated and suggestions for improvement and further research needs were listed. A simple prioritisation tool to assess cumulative effects of single pesticides using mortality data is suggested. Effects from repeated and simultanous exposure and synergism are discussed. Proposals for separate risk assessment schemes, one for honey bees and one for bumble bees and solitary bees, were developed. © European Food Safety Authority, 2012 KEY WORDSGuidance Document, PPR opinion, honey bees, bumble bees, solitary bees, pesticide, risk assessment (2010). Pollination, hive products (for honey-bees only) and biodiversity (specifically addressed under genetic resources and cultural services) were identified as relevant ecosystem services. It was suggested to define the attributes to protect as survival and development of colonies and effects on larvae and honey bee behaviour as listed in regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In addition, abundance/biomass and reproduction were also suggested because of their importance for the development and long-term survival of colonies. The magnitude of effects was defined as negligible if the natural background mortality compared to controls was not exceeded. Further work is needed to give recommendations on the deviation from the controls up to which an effect is still considered negligible. The current methods of field testing would need major improvements in order to detect for example an increase in daily mortality of foragers by 10% with high statistical power. Based on expert judgement it was considered that a small effect could be tolerated for few days without putting the survival of a hive at risk. Further research (modelling) is proposed to clarify this question and to revise the proposal for the magnitude of effects and the temporal scale of effects. The current risk assessment for honey bees relies on an Hazard Quotient (HQ) approach (application rate/LD50) in lower tiers and on semi-field and field tests in higher tiers. It is particularly difficult to ascertain whether a specific exposure percentile is achieved in field studies. Decisions need to be taken on how conservative the exposure estimate should be and what percentage of exposure situations should be covered in the risk assessment. It is recommended to design a flow chart for checking whether exposure in the semi-field or field study was indeed higher than that corresponding to the desired percentile. Factors that may be included are: the crop and its developmental stage, the dosage, measures ensuring that bees are coming into contact with the compound/formulation, weather conditions, and for instance t...

show abstract

“…It may then be supposed, despite not being explicitly demonstrated, that this value of 50 is protective for lethal, sublethal and reproductive effects. A further validation has been undertaken recently by Mineau et al (2008), based on a database containing more than two decades of honey bee hive poisoning incidents from the United Kingdom (Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS)) and corresponding surveys of pesticide use. The results seem to confirm that an HQ of 50 is not likely to result in impacts in the field, but also highlights the influence of the area treated in predicting and reporting incidents.…”

Section: Level Of Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updating the opinion related to the revision of Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market - Ecotoxicological studies

2009

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIf not otherwise stated, the findings and recommendations given in EFSA 2007c remain valid and applicable. Therefore, the present opinion should be read together with the opinion issued in 2007 (EFSA, 2007c). The Panel reemphasises that the data requirements should be flexible enough to allow new risk assessment developments to be considered when available.The present opinion focuses in particular on the number of animals (vertebrates) used in testing, the harmonisation of risk assessment quotients, ECx versus NOEC, risk assessment for honeybees and aquatic plants, and a number of other issues that should be considered in future risk assessment. BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EFSAIn November 2005, the Commission initially informed the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2 that they were revising the data requirements for authorisation of active substances and plant protection products in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC. The revision process involved Part A of Annexes II and III and had been organised in order to amend the directives 3 laying down the data requirements for active substances and plant protection products. The Commission had prepared SANCO Working Documents 4 containing the proposed data requirements to revise Annexes II and III to Directive 91/414/EEC and asked the PPR Panel to provide observations and/or possible recommendations, and in particular to verify that the methodology and the approaches presented in the draft data requirements were in line with the scientific state of the art in the relevant field and the extent of its applicability with respect to the risk assessment of plant protection products.Between May 2006 and March 2007, upon request of the Commission, the PPR Panel issued six opinions on the SANCO working documents related to the revision of Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (EFSA, 2006a, b, c; EFSA, 2007a, b, c). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Using Reports of Bee Mortality in the Field to Calibrate Laboratory-Derived Pesticide Risk Indices

Cited by 37 publications

References 13 publications

Dynamic skeletogenesis in fishes: Insight of exercise training on developmental plasticity

Dynamic skeletogenesis in fishes: Insight of exercise training on developmental plasticity

Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera,Bombusspp. and solitary bees)

Updating the opinion related to the revision of Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market - Ecotoxicological studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About