Person: Wogram, Jörn
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Wogram
Vorname
Jörn
Name
10 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 10 von 10
Veröffentlichung 5-Punkte-Programm für einen nachhaltigen Pflanzenschutz(2016) Egerer, Sina; Frische, Tobias; Matezki, Steffen; Pickl, Christina; Wogram, Jörn; Deutschland. UmweltbundesamtUnterstützt durch die europäische und nationale Agrarförderung der letzten Jahrzehnte hat sich der konventionelle Anbau von Kulturpflanzen als Fundament einer in Deutschland heute zunehmend intensiven Landwirtschaft und Lebensmittelproduktion etabliert. Eine wesentliche Voraussetzung
für die Leistungsfähigkeit dieser Produktionsweise ist bei vielen Anbaukulturen der intensive Einsatz chemischer Pflanzenschutzmittel, was faktisch eine systembedingte Abhängigkeit bedeutet. Diese findet ihren Ausdruck in der Annahme, dass die derzeitigen Anwendungsmengen und Anwendungshäufigkeiten chemischer Pflanzenschutzmitteln das "notwendige Maß" darstellen. Was Kulturpflanzen schützt und damit dem Landwirt
nützt, stellt für Natur und Umwelt hingegen eine Belastung dar. Denn auch für die heute eingesetzten Insektizide, Herbizide und Fungizide gilt im
Allgemeinen: Keine (pflanzenschützende) Wirkung ohne Nebenwirkung (auf Natur und Umwelt). Wegen ihres hohen Umweltgefährdungspotenzials und weil sie in erheblichen Mengen großflächig in der Landschaft ausgebracht werden, ist die Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln daher nur nach erfolgreichem Bestehen eines strengen Prüf- und Zulassungsverfahrens gestattet. Zuständig für die Bewertung der Umweltrisiken ist dabei in Deutschland das Umweltbundesamt (UBA).
Quelle: VerlagsinformationVeröffentlichung Pesticides are the dominant stressors for vulnerable insects in lowland streams(2021) Liess, Matthias; Hitzfeld, Kristina; Liebmann, Liana; Müller, Alexandra; Vormeier, Philipp; Wogram, JörnDespite elaborate regulation of agricultural pesticides, their occurrence in non-target areas has been linked to adverse ecological effects on insects in several field investigations. Their quantitative role in contributing to the biodiversity crisis is, however, still not known. In a large-scale study across 101 sites of small lowland streams in Central Europe, Germany we revealed that 83% of agricultural streams did not meet the pesticide-related ecological targets. For the first time we identified that agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution was the major driver in reducing vulnerable insect populations in aquatic invertebrate communities, exceeding the relevance of other anthropogenic stressors such as poor hydro-morphological structure and nutrients. We identified that the current authorisation of pesticides, which aims to prevent unacceptable adverse effects, underestimates the actual ecological risk as (i) measured pesticide concentrations exceeded current regulatory acceptable concentrations in 81% of the agricultural streams investigated, (ii) for several pesticides the inertia of the authorisation process impedes the incorporation of new scientific knowledge and (iii) existing thresholds of invertebrate toxicity drivers are not protective by a factor of 5.3 to 40. To provide adequate environmental quality objectives, the authorisation process needs to include monitoring-derived information on pesticide effects at the ecosystem level. Here, we derive such thresholds that ensure a protection of the invertebrate stream community. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd.Veröffentlichung Close to reality? Micro-/mesocosm communities do not represent natural macroinvertebrate communities(2022) Duquesne, Sabine; Foit, Kaarina Pirko; Liess, Matthias; Karaoglan, Bilgin; Reiber, Lena; Wogram, JörnBackground: The European environmental risk assessment of plant protection products considers aquatic model ecosystem studies (microcosms/mesocosms, M/M) as suitable higher tier approach to assess treatment-related effects and to derive regulatory acceptable concentrations (RAC). However, it is under debate to what extent these artificial test systems reflect the risks of pesticidal substances with potential harmful effects on natural macroinvertebrate communities, and whether the field communities are adequately protected by the results of the M/M studies. We therefore compared the composition, sensitivity and vulnerability of benthic macroinvertebrates established in control (untreated) groups of 47 selected M/M studies with natural stream communities at 26 reference field sites. Results: Since 2013 the number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa present in M/M studies has increased by 39% to a mean of 38 families per study. However, there is only an average of 4 families per study that comply with the recommendations provided by EFSA (EFSA J 11:3290, 2013), i.e.: (i) allowing statistical identification of treatmentrelated effects of at least 70% according to the minimum detectable difference (here criteria are slightly modified) and (ii) belonging to insects or crustaceans (potentially sensitive taxa for pesticidal substances). Applying the criterion of physiological sensitivity according to the SPEARpesticides concept, the number of families decreases from 4 to 2.3 per study. Conclusions: Most taxa established in recent M/M studies do not suitably represent natural freshwater communities. First, because their abundances are often not sufficient for statistical detection of treatment-related effects in order to determine an appropriate endpoint and subsequent RAC. Recommendations are given to improve the detectability of such effects and their reliability. Second, the taxa often do not represent especially sensitive or vulnerable taxa in natural communities in terms of their traits. The uncertainties linked to vulnerable taxa in M/M studies are especially high considering their representativity for field assemblages and the comparability of factors determining their recovery time. Thus considering recovery for deriving a RAC (i.e., ERO-RAC) is not recommended. In addition, this paper discusses further concerns regarding M/M studies in a broader regulatory context and recommends the development of alternative assessment tools and a shift towards a new paradigm. Quelle:© The Author(s) 2022Veröffentlichung Environmental risk assessment of pesticide mixtures under regulation 1107/2009/EC: a regulatory review by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA)(2014) Frische, Tobias; Matezki, Steffen; Wogram, JörnVeröffentlichung 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 AGVeröffentlichung 5-Point programme for sustainable plant protection(2018) Egerer, Sina Elisabeth; Frische, Tobias; Matezki, Steffen; Pickl, Christina; Wogram, JörnThis position paper intends to stimulate a profound rethinking of contemporary agricultural practice. We criticise the current intensity of chemical plant protection in Germany as ecologically unsustainable and thus threatening the achievement of key targets of environmental protection and nature conservation policies. In the first part of the paper, we provide background information on the use of plant protection products (PPP) in German agriculture, the role of agricultural policy, European pesticide legislation, the principles of and framework for environmental risk assessment and risk management of PPP, as well as environmental effects of PPP. The second part is presented against the backdrop of the European "Sustainable Use Directive" (2009/128/EC). This directive requires that "Member States shall adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures, and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides." Reflecting on the corresponding debate in Germany, we suggest the following five key principles for a sustainable use of PPP and provide recommendations for their implementation: (1) minimising use; (2) identifying, quantifying, and communicating risks; (3) optimising risk management; (4) compensating for unavoidable effects; (5) internalising external costs. © 2018, The Author(s).