Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 2430–2440 | Cite as

Improving the selection of focal species exposed to pesticides to support ecological risk assessments

  • Camila Andrade
  • François Chiron
  • Romain Julliard
Technical Note

Abstract

Risk assessment investigates the potential impacts of chemicals on non-target organisms. To assess the risk, ecotoxicologists study the responses of a panel of species to different substance exposure. Among the different parameters used to select indicator species (i.e. focal species), their frequency of occurrence is considered as the key parameter. Although species occurrence within a given habitat is easy to determine, we argue that it does not totally reflect the dependence of a species on a given habitat or its potential exposure to chemicals. In this study, we combined the occurrence of species with their habitat-specificity to identify focal species for risk assessment in cereals. We showed that ranking species by occurrence or by habitat-specificity produced different results, with generalist species ranking high in the occurrence list, and species with specialised habitats ranking high in the abundance list. Integrating frequency and abundance of species into one single indicator (the "Indicator Value") allows us to rank species with specialised habitats as high as generalist species in the top rank species list. Although habitat-specificity is an ecologically meaningful concept, it is largely overlooked in eco-toxicological risk assessment, despite the fact that specialists are good indicators of various environmental pressures. This method could be used extensively at different scales and could contribute to studies on risk assessment issue by (re)introducing ecological and population-level concepts and opening up new trait-based approaches.

Keywords

Habitat specificity Frequency Farmland birds Indicator value Monitoring France Population level 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the French Ministry of Agriculture and P. Froissart for providing us with geographical data on cultivated crops through the RPG. Grateful thanks also to all volunteers taking part in the Breeding Bird Survey in France (STOC-eps), and to A. Shwartz and F. Jiguet for their comments and for providing us with the BBS database.

References

  1. Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. Bioscience 54:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASP (2010). http://www.asp-public.fr/?q=node/856. Accessed 27 Oct 2011
  3. Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Vickery JA (2002) Large-scale patterns of summer and winter bird distribution in relation to farmland type in England and Wales. Ecography 25:466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boatman ND, Brickle NW, Hart JD, Milsom TP, Morris AJ, Murray AWA, Murray KA, Robertson PA (2004) Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. Ibis 146:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) Corine land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. Technical report no 40, EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Brambilla M, Guidali F, Negri I (2009) Breeding-season habitat associations of the declining Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra—a potential indicator of the overall bunting richness. Ornis Fenn 86:41–50Google Scholar
  7. Brickle NW, Harper DGC, Aebischer NJ, Cockayne SH (2000) Effects of agricultural intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. J Appl Ecol 37:742–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RGH, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M (2000) Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J Appl Ecol 37:771–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ 9:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crocker DR, Irving PV (1999) Improving estimates of wildlife exposure to pesticides in arable crops. Milestone report 02/01: variation of bird numbers on arable crops. Central Science Laboratory, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalkvist T, Topping CJ, Forbes VE (2009) Population-level impacts of pesticide-induced chronic effects on individuals depend more on ecology than toxicology. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1663–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Lange HJ, Sala S, Vighi M, Faber JH (2010) Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment—a review and perspectives. Sci Total Environ 408:3871–3879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  14. EFSA (2008) Opinion of the scientific panel on plant protection products and their residues on the science behind the GD on risk assessment for birds and mammals. EFSA J 734:1–181Google Scholar
  15. Eraud C (2002) Ecologie de l’Alouette des Champs Alauda arvensis en Milieux Cultivés. Report, Ecole Pratique Hautes Etudes 1–119Google Scholar
  16. Eraud C, Boutin JM (2002) Density and productivity of breeding Skylarks Alauda arvensis in relation to crop type on agricultural lands in western France: small field size and the maintenance of set-aside and lucerne are important to ensure high breeding pair densities and productivity. Bird Study 49:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ESRI (2000) ArcView 3.2. Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission (2002) Guidance document on risk assessment for birds and mammals under Council Directive 91/414/EEC. SANCO/4145/2002—final 25 Sept 2002Google Scholar
  19. Filippi-Codaccioni O, Devictor V, Bas Y, Clobert J, Julliard R (2010) Specialist response to proportion of arable land and pesticide input in agricultural landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(4):883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finch E, Payne M (2006) Bird and mammal risk assessment: refining the proportion of diet obtained in the treated crop area (PT) through the use of radio tracking data. Communication to Advisory Committee on Pesticides, SC 11419, 1–48Google Scholar
  21. Gilroy JJ, Anderson GQA, Grice PV, Vickery JA, Watts PN, Sutherland WJ (2009) Foraging habitat selection, diet and nestling condition in Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava breeding on arable farmland. Bird Study 56:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregory RD, van Strien D, Vorisek A, Gmelig Meyling D, Adriaan W, Noble G, Foppen R, Gibbons DW (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Phil Trans R Soc B 360:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guyon J (2005) Relation entre la survie des perdrix grises et les caractéristiques locales de leur habitat en plaine de grande culture simplifiée. Dissertation thesis, University of Rennes 1Google Scholar
  24. Jiguet F (2011) 100 Oiseaux Communs Nicheurs de France. Delachaux & Niestlé et MNHN, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiguet F, Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D (2011) French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provides tools for conservation and ecological sciences. Acta Oecol. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2011.05.003 Google Scholar
  26. Kragten S (2011) Shift in crop preference during the breeding season by Yellow Wagtails Motacilla flava on arable farms in The Netherlands. J Ornithol 152:751–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lahr J, Münier B, De Lange HJ, Faber JF, Sørensen PB (2010) Wildlife vulnerability and risk maps for combined pollutants. Sci Total Environ 408:3891–3898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGeoch MA, Chown SL (1998) Scaling up the value of bioindicators. Trends Ecol Evol 13:47–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGeoch MA, Van Rensburg BJ, Botes A (2002) The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 39:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pascual J, Crocker J, Hart A (1998) Improving estimates of the exposure of non-target wildlife to pesticides in arable crops—a review of existing data. Project PN0919 Discussion document for meeting on 15 May 1998, pp 1–58 Google Scholar
  31. Schmolke A, Thorbek P, Chapman P, Grimm V (2010) Ecological models and pesticide risk assessment: current modeling practice. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1006–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sibly RM, Akçakaya HR, Topping CJ, O’Connor RJ (2005) Population-level assessment of risks of pesticides to birds and mammals in the UK. Ecotoxicology 14:863–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siriwardena GM, Crick HQP, Baillie SR, Wilson JD (2000) Agricultural habitat-type and the breeding performance of granivorous farmland birds in Britain. Bird Study 47:66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snow DW, Perrins CM (1998) The birds of the western palearctic. vol 1–9, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camila Andrade
    • 1
  • François Chiron
    • 1
  • Romain Julliard
    • 1
  1. 1.Species Conservation, Restoration and Monitoring of Populations, CERSP-UMR7204 MNHN-UPMC-CNRS, National Museum of Natural HistoryParisFrance

Personalised recommendations