For many years, there has been an unprecedented decline in biodiversity on a global scale, triggered largely by the use of plant protection products. In this context, a collective scientific assessment was conducted to identify current consensus knowledge and further needs regarding the impacts of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France, including its overseas territories. A particular focus was placed on chlordecone, a highly persistent organochlorine insecticide used extensively in the French West Indies (FWI) for more than 20 years (1972-1993) to control the banana root borer, but also in Eastern Europe, the USA, South America and Africa for various uses. The FWI support biodiversity hotspots, with many endemic and endangered species, and include marine and terrestrial protected areas. Such an environmental context is therefore highly relevant for studying the links between chlordecone contamination and potential effects on biodiversity. Thus, the objective of this work was to review the contamination of the FWI environment by chlordecone, its transfer through ecosystems, and its effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Literature analysis emphasized valuable knowledge of chlordecone ecodynamics in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. A wide diversity of terrestrial and aquatic organisms is chronically exposed to chlordecone. However, despite 15 years of public policy dedicated to developing knowledge on chlordecone's fate and impacts, the knowledge gap remains critical regarding its effects on biodiversity and on ecosystem services. As the local environment is often contaminated for tens or even hundreds of years, future research is needed to characterize the effects of legacy pollution by chlordecone and its transformation products on organisms and ecosystems.

Conservation agricultural practices based on mulching and herbicides use are becoming more widespread. However, they cannot be simulated with pesticide fate models used for risk assessment before placing pesticides on the European market. Thus, this work sought to assess and compare the performance of PRZM and MACRO models to replicate the moisture content and vertical distribution of S-metolachlor, foramsulfuron, and thiencarbazone-methyl herbicides in two agricultural soils under conventional tillage (CT) and non-tillage (NT) over a two-year field experiment. A new approach was developed to consider the impact of the mulch on soil moisture and on the amount of herbicides reaching the NT topsoil. This involved removing the presence of the mulch layer while maintaining its impact on potential evapotranspiration and herbicide adsorption and degradation through the meteorological file and the herbicide application inputs, respectively. In addition, the Kf of S-metolachlor was calibrated for an acceptable agreement between predictions and observations. MACRO outperformed PRZM in simulating soil water content and herbicide mobility, and both models performed better under CT compared to NT. Model performances decreased the second year, especially in NT soils, because herbicide DT50 were parameterized with values measured the first year, which were less representative of the second year. This new modelling approach is appropriate for simulating moisture and herbicide transport in NT soils with MACRO on a bi-annual scale. However, to assess the fate of herbicides in NT, models require a module allowing change in DT50 according to the soil surface covered annually by the mulch.

Plant protection products (PPPs) are intended to protect plants against pests. However, they are also known to contribute unequivocally to the decline of biodiversity due to their negative impact on biological groups such as terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and amphibians. At the intersection of ecotoxicology, social sciences, and law, numerous studies address the discrepancy between the regulatory framework's objectives to protect biodiversity and the actually observed impacts of legally used PPPs. The main reasons put forward are the normalization constraints of ecotoxicity tests and the inability to anticipate effects in the current substance-by-substance risk assessment process given the complexity of multifactorial interactions in the ecosystems and the real conditions of PPP use. Therefore, the greater the consideration given to the systemic complexity of indirect effects, the less possible it is to quantify the contribution of a given cause, in our case, a PPP. This is a core issue in legal disputes regarding the liability of those who develop PPPs, those who use them, as well as decision-makers who approve them. This article explores legal possibilities to better address the missing link between substance-by-substance assessment and authorization processes, and biodiversity protection instruments. The aim is to question the division of roles between scientific expertise, legal disputes, and public policy.

Source Agritrop Cirad (https://agritrop.cirad.fr/616017/)

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.

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.

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.

Biocontrol solutions (macroorganisms, microorganisms, natural substances, semiochemicals) are presented as potential alternatives to conventional plant protection products (PPPs) because they are supposed to have lower impacts on ecosystems and human health. However, to ensure the sustainability of biocontrol solutions, it is necessary to document the unintended effects of their use. Thus, the objectives of this work were to review (1) the available biocontrol solutions and their regulation, (2) the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air) by biocontrol solutions, (3) the fate of biocontrol solutions in the environment, (4) their ecotoxicological impacts on biodiversity, and (5) the impacts of biocontrol solutions compared to those of conventional PPPs. Very few studies concern the presence of biocontrol solutions in the environment, their fate, and their impacts on biodiversity. The most important number of results were found for the organisms that have been used the longest, and most often from the angle of their interactions with other biocontrol agents. However, the use of living organisms (microorganisms and macroorganisms) in biocontrol brings a specific dimension compared to conventional PPPs because they can survive, multiply, move, and colonize other environments. The questioning of regulation stems from this specific dimension of the use of living organisms. Concerning natural substances, the few existing results indicate that while most of them have low ecotoxicity, others have a toxicity equivalent to or greater than that of the conventional PPPs. There are almost no result regarding semiochemicals. Knowledge of the unintended effects of biocontrol solutions has proved to be very incomplete. Research remains necessary to ensure their sustainability.

The placing of plant protection products (PPPs) on the market in the European Union is governed by numerous regulations. These regulations are among the most stringent in the world, however they have been the subject of criticisms especially because of the decline in biodiversity. The objectives of this work were to review (1) the functioning and actors involved in the PPP framework processes, (2) the construction of the environmental risk assessment focused on biodiversity, and (3) the suggested ways to respond to the identified limits. Both literature from social sciences and ecotoxicology were examined. Despite the protective nature of the European regulation on PPPs, the very imperfect consideration of biodiversity in the evaluation process was underlined. The main limits are the multiplicity of applicable rules, the routinization of the evaluation procedures, the lack of consideration of social data, and the lack of independence of the evaluation. Strengths of the regulation are the decision to integrate a systemic approach in the evaluation of PPPs, the development of modeling tools, and the phytopharmacovigilance systems. The avenues for improvement concern the realism of the risk assessment (species used, cocktail effects…), a greater transparency and independence in the conduct of evaluations, and the opening of the evaluation and decision-making processes to actors such as beekeepers or NGOs. Truly interdisciplinary reflections crossing the functioning of the living world, its alteration by PPPs, and how these elements question the users of PPPs would allow to specify social actions, public policies, and their regulation to better protect biodiversity.

The intensification of agriculture has promoted the simplification and specialization of agroecosystems, resulting in negative impacts such as decreasing landscape heterogeneity and increasing use of plant protection products (PPP), with the acceleration of PPP transfers to environmental compartments and loss in biodiversity. In this context, the present work reviews the various levers for action promoting the prevention and management of these transfers in the environment and the available modelling tools. Two main categories of levers were identified: (1) better control of the application, including the reduction of doses and of PPP dispersion during application thanks to appropriate equipment and settings, PPP formulations and consideration of meteorological conditions; (2) reduction of post-application transfers at plot scales (soil cover, low tillage, organic matter management, remediation etc. and at landscape scales using either dry (grassed strips, forest, hedgerows and ditches) or wet (ponds, mangroves and stormwater basins) buffer zones. The management of PPP residues leftover in the spray tanks (biobeds) also represents a lever for limiting point-source PPP pollution. Numerous models have been developed to simulate the transfers of PPPs at plot scales. They are scarce for landscape scales. A few are used for regulatory risk assessment. These models could still be improved, for example, if current agricultural practices (e.g. agro-ecological practices and biopesticides), and their effect on PPP transfers were better described. If operated alone, none of the levers guarantee a zero risk of PPP transfer. However, if levers are applied in a combined manner, PPP transfers could be more easily limited (agricultural practices, landscape organization etc.).

Plant protection products (PPP) are extensively used to protect plants against harmful organisms, but they also have unintended effects on non-target organisms, especially terrestrial invertebrates. The impact of PPP on ecosystem functions provided by these non-target invertebrates remains, however, unclear. The objectives of this article were to review PPP impacts on the ecosystem functions provided by pollinators, predators and parasitoids, and soil organisms, and to identify the factors that aggravate or mitigate PPP effects. The literature highlights that PPP alter several ecosystem functions: provision and maintenance of biodiversity, pollination, biotic interactions and habitat completeness in terrestrial ecosystems, and organic matter and soil structure dynamics. However, there are still a few studies dealing with ecosystem functions, with sometimes contradictory results, and consequences on agricultural provisioning services remain unclear. The model organisms used to assess PPP ecotoxicological effects are still limited, and should be expanded to better cover the wide functional diversity of terrestrial invertebrates. Data are lacking on PPP sublethal, transgenerational, and “cocktail” effects, and on their multitrophic consequences. In empirical assessments, studies on PPP unintended effects should consider agricultural-pedoclimatic contexts because they influence the responses of non-target organisms and associated ecosystem functions to PPP. Modeling might be a promising way to account for the complex interactions among PPP mixtures, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning.

There is an urgent need by the European Union to establish baseline levels for many widespread pollutants and to set out specific levels for these under the Zero pollution action plan. To date, few systematic reviews, superseded by bibliometric analyses, have explored this issue. Even less research has been carried out to compare the efficacy of these two data extraction approaches. This study aims to address these two issues by i) constructing an inventory of the available information on urban soils, highlighting evidence gaps and measuring compliance with the Zero pollution action plan, and by ii) comparing the methods and results of these two data extraction approaches. Through Scopus and Web of Science databases, peer-reviewed articles using the terms urban soil in combination with specific urban soil threats and/or challenges were included. Notably, both approaches retrieved a similar number of initial articles overall, while the bibliometric analysis removed fewer duplicates and excluded fewer articles overall, leaving the total number of articles included in each approach as: 603 articles in the systematic review and 2372 articles in the bibliometric analysis. Nevertheless, both approaches identified the two main urban soil threats and/or challenges to be linked to soil organic carbon and/or heavy metals. This study gives timely input into the Zero pollution action plan and makes recommendations to stakeholders within the urban context.

One current challenge in sustainable agriculture is to redesign cropping systems to reduce the use and impacts of pesticides, and by doing so protect the environment, in particular groundwater, and human health. As a large range of systems could be explored and a wide number of pesticides used, field experiments cannot be carried out to study the sustainability of each of them. Thus, the objectives of this work were (1) to measure water flows and pesticide leaching in six contrasted low input cropping systems based on sunflower-wheat rotation, oilseed rape-wheat-barley rotation, and maize monoculture, experimented for three years in three different soil and climatic conditions, and (2) to assess and to compare the ability of three pesticide fate models (MACRO, PEARL, PRZM) to simulate the observed water flows and pesticide concentrations. The systems were designed using various crop rotations, including cover crops and intercrops. The models were parameterized with generic parameter estimation routines as done for regulatory risk assessment, and a method was developed to parameterize intercrops, not represented in the models: the use of average crop factors, maximum LAI, crop height and rooting depth of the crops constituting the intercrop allowed acceptable simulations of cumulative water flows, but not their dynamic. Twelve pesticides of 70 applied were quantified in lysimeter samples (e.g. bentazone, glyphosate, S-metolachlor), and their concentrations exceeded 0.1 μg L−1 in several occasions. The performance of the models to reproduce pesticide concentrations was generally poor illustrating the great challenge and the progress needed to simulate accurately pesticide transfers into the soil. The best fits to measured data were attained using “worst-case” pesticide sorption and degradation parameters. Overall, MACRO performed better than PEARL and PRZM. The method developed to parameterize intercrops could be used for risk assessment of groundwater contamination by pesticides in low input cropping systems, but the use of the three models without any calibration is likely to underestimate pesticide leaching in several situations.