Chapter 10 Overview of a Proposed Ecological Risk Assessment Process for Honey bees (Apis mellifera) and Non-Apis Bees A. Alix, A. AlixSearch for more papers by this authorT. Steeger, T. SteegerSearch for more papers by this authorC. Brittain, C. BrittainSearch for more papers by this authorD. Fischer, D. FischerSearch for more papers by this authorR. Johnson, R. JohnsonSearch for more papers by this authorT. Moriarty, T. MoriartySearch for more papers by this authorE. Johansen, E. JohansenSearch for more papers by this authorF. Streissel, F. StreisselSearch for more papers by this authorR. Fischer, R. FischerSearch for more papers by this authorM. Miles, M. MilesSearch for more papers by this authorC. Lee-Steere, C. Lee-SteereSearch for more papers by this authorM. Vaughan, M. VaughanSearch for more papers by this authorB. Vaissiere, B. VaissiereSearch for more papers by this authorG. Maynard, G. MaynardSearch for more papers by this authorM. Kasina, M. KasinaSearch for more papers by this authorR.C.F. Nocelli, R.C.F. NocelliSearch for more papers by this authorC. Scott-Dupree, C. Scott-DupreeSearch for more papers by this authorM. Coulson, M. CoulsonSearch for more papers by this authorA. Dinter, A. DinterSearch for more papers by this authorM. Fry, M. FrySearch for more papers by this author A. Alix, A. AlixSearch for more papers by this authorT. Steeger, T. SteegerSearch for more papers by this authorC. Brittain, C. BrittainSearch for more papers by this authorD. Fischer, D. FischerSearch for more papers by this authorR. Johnson, R. JohnsonSearch for more papers by this authorT. Moriarty, T. MoriartySearch for more papers by this authorE. Johansen, E. JohansenSearch for more papers by this authorF. Streissel, F. StreisselSearch for more papers by this authorR. Fischer, R. FischerSearch for more papers by this authorM. Miles, M. MilesSearch for more papers by this authorC. Lee-Steere, C. Lee-SteereSearch for more papers by this authorM. Vaughan, M. VaughanSearch for more papers by this authorB. Vaissiere, B. VaissiereSearch for more papers by this authorG. Maynard, G. MaynardSearch for more papers by this authorM. Kasina, M. KasinaSearch for more papers by this authorR.C.F. Nocelli, R.C.F. NocelliSearch for more papers by this authorC. Scott-Dupree, C. Scott-DupreeSearch for more papers by this authorM. Coulson, M. CoulsonSearch for more papers by this authorA. Dinter, A. DinterSearch for more papers by this authorM. Fry, M. FrySearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):David Fischer, David Fischer Environmental Safety, Bayer CropScience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this authorThomas Moriarty, Thomas Moriarty Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 May 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118852408.ch10Citations: 3 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Summary This chapter proposes a method for estimating risk to honey bees (Apis mellifera) and non-Apis bees from pesticides that are applied through sprays (acting on contact) and through seed or soil treatments and tree trunk injections (acting systemically). It describes the risk assessment process for honey bees and non-Apis bees. Problem formulation articulates the intent of the risk assessment and is predicated on particular protection goals for which the regulatory authority is responsible. The chapter illustrates the proposed risk assessment process identified by the participants of the 2011 SETAC Workshop on Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators. The potential risk to adult honey bees from spray applications is assessed through calculation of an HQ. The screening-level and refined risk assessment processes for soil or seed treatment-applied pesticides incorporate different degrees of ecological realism. Screening-level assessments are typically based on conservative assumptions regarding both exposure and effects. Citing Literature Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators RelatedInformation

The predatory bugs Anthocoris nemoralis and A. nemorum are important predators of the pear psylla (Psylla pyri) in pear orchards. To effectively control psylla infestations the use of insecticide treatments are often necessary so it is desirable to adopt products and use patterns which protect or conserve natural predator populations. Spinosad (the active ingredient in TRACER* insecticide) is highly active on psylla when applied up to two times after flowering. To investigate the effects of spinosad on A. nemoralis and A. nemorum a series of field trials were conducted between 1998 and 2005 in pear. Findings from these trials showed that spinosad applied at the psylla rate may cause minor short term effects on A. nemoralis and A. nemorum specifically to very young (or recently hatched) nymphs. However, due to the rapid photodegradation of spinosad recovery of predatory bug populations follows a few days after final application. The occasional depressive effect due to spinosad applications was considered to be due mainly to the removal of the pear psylla prey as spinosad has excellent efficacy on this pest. Findings from the trials demonstrated that predatory bug populations recover rapidly within a few days after the second application in order to control any new pear psylla attack. Therefore, spinosad can be considered as a valuable new tool for controlling pear psylla populations in pear orchards and to be compatible with augmented biological control by the predatory bug population.

The effects of spinosad to beneficial and non-target arthropods has been extensively researched. Data have been generated under laboratory, semi-field and field conditions on a wide range of predatory and parasitic taxa in a variety of geographical regions and crop types. Such a large body of data cannot be summarized in detail in a single publication; however, general patterns of effects exist in the data. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the range of effects of spinosad to beneficial predatory and parasitic arthropods. This is done by presenting in detail selected laboratory, semi-field and field test with beneficial arthropods. Following that an analysis of a database of effects is conducted using records taken from Dow AgroSciences and independent reports. Using these illustrations the profile of effects on a range of predatory and parasitic arthropods are clearly defined. Research has demonstrated that when used according to good agricultural or horticultural practice spinosad is of low risk to predatory mites and beneficial insect populations. Toxicity has been reported to certain parasitic hymenoptera but due to the very short persistence of the product any effects are short lived and followed by rapid recovery. This makes the product an ideal tool in vegetable, pome and pear crops where it can be used to control, thrips caterpillar pests and Psylla. Overall, spinosad preserves natural populations of predatory mites and beneficial insects which make it an ideal choice in IPM programmes.

Mancozeb is an ethylene bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) fungicide with contact activity against a wide range of economically important fungal diseases. Its multi-site mode of action means that to date there have been no recorded incidences of resistance developing despite many years of use on high risk diseases. One such disease, Grape downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola) has developed resistance to a number of important oomycete specific fungicides following their introduction onto the market. The role of Mancozeb either as a mixing or alternation partner in helping to manage these resistance situations remains critically important. Historical use patterns for mancozeb in tree and vine crops involved many applications of product at high use rates. Although this gave excellent disease control, a negative impact on predatory mites has been reported by researchers. This has lead to the development of mancozeb spray programmes in vines and other crops with a much reduced impact on predatory mites. A range of field studies was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain where either 2 or 4 applications of mancozeb containing products were made per season at different spray timings. These trials covered the representative range of uses, agronomic practices, mite species and geographical locations in Europe. In this paper findings from ten field studies in five different vine growing regions in Europe indicated that two to four applications of mancozeb at 1.6 kg a.i./ha as part of a spray programme caused minimal impact on naturally occurring populations of predatory mites which in turn was compatible with Integrated Pest Management programmes and the conservation of predatory mites.

The EU Plant Protection Product Directive 91/414/EEC recommends the EPPO/CoE Arthropod Natural Enemies Risk Assessment Scheme for guidance on how to conduct risk assessments for terrestrial non-target arthropods. This scheme is currently in the process of being revised by EPPO/ CoE. A major change will be the recommendation for the generation and use of ’Dose Response’ toxicity data instead of limit test data. In addition, the revised EPPO/CoE Non-target Arthropods Risk Assessment Scheme will replace the current arbitrary 30% threshold trigger value applied to limit test data, with a Hazard Quotient (HQ; = Ratio Application Rate/LC50 on Glass)), comparable to the successful approach adopted in the EPPO/CoE ’Honeybee Risk Assessment Scheme’. However, in order for this new approach to be implemented under 91/414/EEC, an appropriate regulatory HQ trigger value needs to be derived. Such an HQ trigger value has been established by calculating HQ values for the 2 recommended sensitive indicator species (T pyri andAphidius) for a wide range of products and validating opposite robust semi-field/field data. This validation indicated that an HQ trigger value of ≥ 12 forT pyri and ≥ 8 forAphidius spp., should be used to trigger higher-tier risk assessment and/or higher-tier testing for non-target arthropods. As these trigger values were validated with realistic semi-field/ field data they apply for both lethal and sub-lethal effects as well as single and multiple application scenarios. Due to the worst case assumptions used in this HQ validation analysis, no further uncertainty factors need to be applied for in-crop risk assessment. Whilst a small amount of uncertainty exists regarding the comparative sensitivity ofT pyri andAphidius spp. for off-crop non-target arthropod guilds of arthropods, this is balanced by the fact that the off-crop exposure assessment used in the HQ derivation, is at least an order of magnitude higher than that realistically likely in the field. This HQ approach and trigger value is an appropriate and conservative tool for tier 1 risk assessment, which should reduce the number of false positive results leading to unnecessary higher-tier testing.

Data on the sensitivity of nine non-target arthropod families to 95 plant protection products (PPP), including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and plant growth regulators, tested using currently established laboratory methods were analyzed. The data presented were supplied by 11 agro-chemical companies and were generated for regulatory purposes. All the studies were performed in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards. For the analysis of the relative sensitivity to PPP, the measurement endpoints in each arthropod study performed were separated into lethal (mortality) and sub-lethal effects (e.g. oviposition, hatching rate, food consumption). Differences in sensitivity among arthropod species to the same PPP, the relative sensitivity of arthropod species among PPP tested, and the potential use of the more sensitive species as indicator species for regulatory testing purposes are discussed.Pooling the data for all PPP tested provided a ranking of the sensitivity of the arthropod species using the currently available test systems. Typhlodromus pyri and Aphidius spp., showed the greatest sensitivity to PPP (76.8% and 67.4% of the PPP tested eliciting lethal or sub-lethal effects greater than or equal to 30% to T. pyri and Aphidius spp., respectively). All other species tested were of intermediate sensitivity with approximately 10.5% and 55% of the PPP tested eliciting lethal or sub-lethal effects greater than or equal to 30%. Ranking of the arthropod species tested, in order of decreasing sensitivity and based on a combination of both lethal and sub-lethal endpoints, follows: T. pyri, Aphidius spp., Coccinella septempunctata, Orius spp., Pardosa spp., Episyrphus balteatus, Chrysoperla carnea, P. cupreus and A. bilineata.Of the 95 PPP evaluated, 23.2% elicited an adverse lethal or sub-lethal effect greater than or equal to 30% an T. pyri without affecting Aphidius sp., 13.7% elicited an adverse lethal or sub-lethal effect greater than or equal to 30% on Aphidius spp. without affecting I: pyri. Among all arthropod species and PPP tested, an adverse effect greater than or equal to 30% on a sub-lethal endpoint was observed in 10% to 20% of the studies without an adverse effect on mortality. For E. balteatus, C. carnea, P. cupreus and A. bilineata, the percentage of PPP eliciting adverse; effects on sublethal parameters was always higher than the percentage of PPP showing effects on mortality.With a combination of both lethal and sub-lethal parameters as the assessment endpoints, if a PPP elicited an adverse effect greater than or equal to 30% on any of the arthropod species tested, an adverse effect also was observed in either T. pyri and Aphidius spp. in 95.8% of the cases. Similar results were obtained if fungicides and herbicides were considered separately (96.0% and 94.1%, respectively). These results indicate that the potential of an arthropod species to be adversely affected following exposure to a PPP under worst-case exposure conditions can be effectively predicted by determining the lethal and sub-lethal effects of the PPP on the two sensitive species, T. pyri and Aphidius spp. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.