Person: Pieper, Silvia
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
1965
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Biologin
Nachname
Pieper
Vorname
Silvia
Name
5 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 5 von 5
Veröffentlichung A critical examination of the protection level for primary producers in the first tier of the aquatic risk assessment for plant protection products(2023) Brendel, Stephan; Duquesne, Sabine; Hönemann, Linda; Konschak, Marco; Pieper, Silvia; Solé, Magali; Wogram, JörnBackground The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve-EbC50), increase in biomass (yield- EyC50) or growth rate (ErC50) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint (ErC50) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level. Results Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on ErC50. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures. Conclusions We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters. © The Author(s) 2023Veröffentlichung Towards sustainable plant protection(Umweltbundesamt, 2022) Bär, Susanne; Foit, Kaarina Pirko; Heß, Michael; Knillmann, Saskia; Kotschik, Pia; Kuppe, Konstantin; Matezki, Steffen; Müller, Alexandra; Otto, Sally; Petzold, Nora; Pieper, Silvia; Wogram, Jörn; Deutschland. UmweltbundesamtWith the new draft regulation on the "Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products" (SUR), the European Commission is concretising the pesticide reduction target of 50% by 2030 stipulated in the Farm-to-Fork Strategy. The legally binding implementation of integrated pest management sets a new course for sustainable agriculture. However, for the success of practical implementation to contribute to species conservation and to create resilient ecosystems in the agricultural landscape, further preconditions are necessary. This scientific opinion paper provides four major recommendations for action that are needed from an environmental perspective to achieve the envisaged objectives. Quelle: www.umweltbundesamt.deVeröffentlichung Vers une protection durable des cultures(Umweltbundesamt, 2022) Bär, Susanne; Foit, Kaarina Pirko; Heß, Michael; Knillmann, Saskia; Kotschik, Pia; Kuppe, Konstantin; Matezki, Steffen; Müller, Alexandra; Otto, Sally; Petzold, Nora; Pieper, Silvia; Wogram, Jörn; Deutschland. UmweltbundesamtDans la proposition de règlement concernant une utilisation des produits phytopharmaceutiques compatible avec le développement durable, la Commission européenne concrétise l'objectif de réduction de 50 % des pesticides de la stratégie "Farm-to-fork". Le développement d'une agriculture durable est cadrée par une mise en œuvre juridiquement contraignante de la lutte intégrée. Mais pour que les mesures contribuent à la préservation des écosystèmes sensibles des paysages agricoles, d'autres conditions sont nécessaires. Ce Scientific Opinion Paper explique, dans une perspective environnementale, quatre propositions d'amélioration de la Directive SUR qui permettraient d'atteindre cet objectif. Quelle: www.umweltbundesamt.deVeröffentlichung Auf dem Weg zu einem nachhaltigen Pflanzenschutz(Umweltbundesamt, 2022) Bär, Susanne; Foit, Kaarina Pirko; Heß, Michael; Knillmann, Saskia; Kotschik, Pia; Kuppe, Konstantin; Matezki, Steffen; Müller, Alexandra; Otto, Sally; Petzold, Nora; Pieper, Silvia; Wogram, Jörn; Deutschland. UmweltbundesamtIm Verordnungsentwurf zur "Nachhaltigen Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln" (SUR) konkretisiert die Europäische Kommission das 50 % Pestizidreduktionsziel der Farm-to-Fork-Strategy. Durch eine rechtsverbindliche Umsetzung des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes werden die Weichen für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft neu gestellt. Doch damit die Vorgaben auch in der Praxis wirken, zum Artenerhalt beitragen und resiliente Ökosysteme in Agrarlandschaften hervorbringen kann, braucht es noch weitere Voraussetzungen. Dieses Scientific Opinion Paper erklärt aus der Umweltperspektive vier Verbesserungsvorschläge zur SUR, die dafür notwendig sind. Quelle: www.umweltbundesamt.deVeröffentlichung Better define beta-optimizing MDD (minimum detectable difference) when interpreting treatment-related effects of pesticides in semi-field and field studies(2020) Alalouni, Urwa; Duquesne, Sabine; Egerer, Sina Elisabeth; Frische, Tobias; Gergs, René; Gräff, Thomas; Sahm, René; Pieper, Silvia; Wogram, JörnThe minimum detectable difference (MDD) is a measure of the difference between the means of a treatment and the control that must exist to detect a statistically significant effect. It is a measure at a defined level of probability and a given variability of the data. It provides an indication for the robustness of statistically derived effect thresholds such as the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) and the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) when interpreting treatment-related effects on a population exposed to chemicals in semi-field studies (e.g., micro-/mesocosm studies) or field studies. MDD has been proposed in the guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products in edge of field surface waters (EFSA Journal 11(7):3290, 2013), in order to better estimate the robustness of endpoints from such studies for taking regulatory decisions. However, the MDD calculation method as suggested in this framework does not clearly specify the power which is represented by the beta-value (i.e., the level of probability of type II error). This has implications for the interpretation of experimental results, i.e., the derivation of robust effect values and their use in risk assessment of PPPs. In this paper, different methods of MDD calculations are investigated, with an emphasis on their pre-defined levels of type II error-probability. Furthermore, a modification is suggested for an optimal use of the MDD, which ensures a high degree of certainty for decision-makers. © 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG