Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the potential for intrinsic recovery in a Collembola two-generation study: possible implementation in a tiered soil risk assessment approach for plant protection products

  • Published:
Ecotoxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collembola are soil dwelling organisms that provide important ecosystem services within soils. To increase realism in evaluating potential effects of plant protection products a Collembola two-generation study was developed. This test assesses the potential for recovery of Collembola when exposed to plant protection products. Juvenile individuals of Folsomia candida (Willem, Ann Soc Entomol Belg 46:275–283, 1902) which hatched under conditions of exposure to a test substance in a modified OECD 232 bioassay were introduced into a second consecutive bioassay containing the same test substance aged in soil. This test system determines whether a population which was initially impacted by a substance in a 1st bioassay shows normal reproduction or survival in a 2nd bioassay after aging of the test substance in soil. An intermediate period for juvenile growth is included between the 1st and 2nd bioassay in order to reduce the control treatment variability in reproduction and mortality to fulfill the validity criteria according to the OECD 232 guideline. The Collembola two-generation study is able to differentiate between substances showing either a potential long-term risk or comprising a low risk. Comparing the results of this two generation study with data from semi-field or field studies indicates a high degree of conservatism when this test is considered within a tiered risk assessment scheme. This approach represents a valuable tool which makes the risk assessment more efficient by providing an alternative refinement option for highly conservative tier 1 Collembola risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bedano JC, Cantú MP, Doucet ME (2006) Soil springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola), symphylans and pauropods (Arthropoda: Myriapoda) under different management systems in agroecosystems of the subhumid Pampa (Argentina). Eur J Soil Biol 42:107–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkemoe T, Somme L (1998) Population dynamics of two collembolan species in an Arctic tundra. Pedobiologia 42:131–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan A, Fortune T, Bolger T (2006) Collembola abundances and assemblage structures in conventionally tilled and conservation tillage arable systems. Pedobiologia 50:135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campiche S, L’Ambert G, Tarradellas J, Becker-van Slooten K (2007) Multigeneration effects of insect growth regulators on the springtail Folsomia candida. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67:180–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chahartaghi M, Langel R, Scheu S, Ruess L (2005) Feeding guilds in Collembola based on nitrogen stable isotope ratios. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1718–1725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvat M, Wolters V, Dauber J (2007) Response of collembolan communities to land-use change and grassland succession. Ecography 30:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson MM, Cilgi T, Petersen MK, Wratten SD, Frampton C (1997) Resilience of springtail (Collembola) populations in farmland following exposure to insecticides. Aust J Entomol 3:99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • EC 95/36 (1995) Commission Directive 95/36/EC of 14 July 1995 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of the European Union L 172: 8–20

  • EC directive No 91/414 Annex VI (1991) Council Directive 97/57/EC of 22 September 1997 establishing Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of the European Union L 265, 27/08/1997, p 0087–0109

  • EC Regulation No 1107/2009: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 309/1, 2009/11/24

  • EFSA (2009) Guidance of EFSA – risk assessment for bird an mammals. EFSA J 7(12):1438

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2010) Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), EFSA Journal 8 (10):1821, Parma, Italy

  • EFSA (2015) EFSA Guidance Document for predicting environmental concentrations of active substances of plant protection products and transformation products of these active substances in soil. EFSA J 13(4):4093

    Google Scholar 

  • Endlweber K, Schädler M, Scheu S (2006) Effects of above- and below ground insecticide applications on the Collembola community in a plant succession experiment. Appl Soil Ecol 31:136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst G, Bendall J, Bergtold M, Coulson M, Dinter A, Garlej B, Hammel K, Kabouw P, von Merey G, Sharples A, Vrbka S, Weyman G, Christl H (2014) Re-evaluation of the assessment factor for the earthworm Tier 1 risk assessment of plant protection products. Oral presentation on 2014/05/12 at SETAC Europe 24th Annual Meeting in Basel from 11th to 15th of May 2014. Abstract book of SETAC Europe 24th Annual Meeting, ISSN 2309–8031

  • ESCORT 2 (2001) Guidance document on regulatory testing and risk assessment procedures for plant protection products with non-target arthropods. In: Candolfi M P, Barrett KL, Campbell PJ, Forster R, Grandy N, Huet MC, Lewis G, Oomen PA, Schmuck R, Vogt H (eds) Escort 2 workshop held at Wageningen International Conference Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 21–31 March, 2000, SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA

  • EU—list of endpoints (1998) Monograph prepared in the context of inclusion of following active substance in Annex I of the Council Directive 91/414/EEC—Lindane. 6221/ECCO/PSD/98. Stockholm convention—protecting human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants; internet source: http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPsReviewCommittee/Submissions20062007/CommentsondraftsofRMEYear2006/LINDANEInformationsubmitted/tabid/472/language/en-US/Default.aspx. Accessed 8 Sep 2014

  • EU-review report Chlorpyrifos-methyl (2005) Review report for the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl. European Commission Heath and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, SANCO/3061/99—rev. 1.6, 3rd of June 2005

  • Filser J, Wiegmann S, Schröder B (2014) Collembola in ecotoxicology – Any news or just boring routine? Appl Soil Ecol 83:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjellberg A (1975) Organization and dynamics of Collembola populations on Hardangervidda. Ecological studies. Analysis and synthesis. Fennoscandian Tundra ecosystems Part 2, vol 17. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountain MT, Hopkin SP (2005) Folsomia candida (Collembola): a “Standard” soil arthropod. Annu Rev Entomol 50:201–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frampton GK (2000) Recovery responses of soil surface Collembola after spatial and temporal changes in long-term regimes of pesticide use. Pedobiologia 44:489–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frampton GF, van den Brink PJ (2002) Influence of cropping on the species composition of epigeic Collembola in arable fields. Pedobiologia 46:328–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Green CD (1964) The life history and fecundity of Folsomia candida (Willem) var. distincta (Bagnall) (Collembola: Isotomidae). Proc R Soc London (A) 39:125–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale WG (1965) Observations on the breeding biology of Collembola. I, II. Pedobiologia 5(146–152):161–177

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 11267 (1999): Soil quality—Inhibition of reproduction of Collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil pollutants. International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland

  • ISO 11268-3 (1999) Soil quality—Effects of pollutants on earthworms—Part 3: Guidance on the determination of effects in field situations, International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Krämer W, Schirmer U, Jeschke P, Witschel M (2011) Modern crop protection compounds, vol 3, 2nd Revised and Enlarged edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kula C, Heimbach F, Riepert F, Roembke J (2006) Technical recommendations for the update of the ISO earthworm field test guideline (ISO 11268-3). J Soils Sediments 6:182–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larink O (1997) Springtails and mites: Important knots in the food web of soils. In: Benckieser G (ed) Fauna in soil ecosystems. Recycling processes, nutrient fluxes, and agricultural production. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp 225–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Leon Paumen M, Steenbergen E, Kraak MHS, van Straalen NM, van Gestel CAM (2008) Multigeneration exposure of the springtail Folsomia candida to phenanthrene: from dose-response relationships to threshold concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 42:6985–6990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marx MT, Guhmann P, Decker P (2012) Adaptations and predispositions of different Middle European arthropod taxa (Collembola, Araneae, Chilopoda, Diplopoda) to flooding and drought conditions. Animals 2:564–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD 232 (2009) OECD Guidelines for testing chemicals - Collembolan reproduction test in soil. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, September 7th 2009

  • Potapow M (2001) Synopses on Palearctic Collembola.Isotomidae Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz, vol 3. Winter Druck, Herrnhut

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusek J (1998) Biodiversity of Collembola and their functional role in the ecosystem. Biodivers Conserv 7:1207–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon JA, Schaefer M, Alphei J, Schmid B, Scheu S (2004) Effects of plant diversity on Collembola in an experimental grassland ecosystem. Oikos 106:51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SANCO/10329/2002 rev 2 final (2002) Guidance document for terrestrial ecotoxicology under council directive 91/414. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Directorate E - Food Safety: plant health, animal health and welfare, international questions, E1 - Plant health, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/guidance_documents/active_substances_en.htm (2015/08/20), 17 October 2002

  • Schaeffer A, van den Brink PJ, Heimbach F, Hoy SP, de Jong FMW, Römbke J, Roß-Nickoll M, Sousa JP (2011) Semi-Field Methods for the Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides in Soil. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz-Starke B, Beylich A, Moser T, Nikolakis A, Rumpler N, Schaeffer A, Theißen B, Toschki A, Roß-Nickoll M (2013) The response of soil organism communities to the application of the insecticide lindane in terrestrial model ecosystems. Ecotoxicology 22:339–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Takeda H (1984) A long term study of life cycle and population dynamics of Folsomia octoculata Handschin (Insecta: Collembola) in a pine forest soil. Res. Popul. Ecol. 26:188–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vegter JJ (1987) Phenology and seasonal resource partitioning in forest floor Collembola. Oikos 48:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser S (1985) Role of soil invertebrates in determining the composition of soil microbial communities. In: Fitter AH, Atkinson D, Read DJ, Usher MB (eds) Ecological Interactions in Soil. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 297–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Willem V (1902) Note préliminaire sur les Collemboles des grottes de Han et de Rochefort. Ann Soc Entomol Belg 46:275–283

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We like to thank Martina Mittag for her support in the laboratory and Paul Neumann and Mark Miles for valuable discussions. Gregor Ernst, Michael T. Marx, and Ursula Frommholz are employed by Bayer CropScience AG; Patrick Kabouw and Stefanie Royer by BASF SE; and, Markus Barth and Sabine Friedrich by Biochem agrar GmbH, a contract research institute that regularly performs standard studies for the chemical industry. Financial support for this investigation was funded by each affiliation individually.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bayer CropScience AG, Alfred-Nobel-Straße 50, 40789, Monheim, Germany

    Gregor Ernst, Michael T. Marx & Ursula Frommholz

  2. BASF SE, Speyererstraße 2, 67117, Limburgerhof, Germany

    Patrick Kabouw & Stefanie Royer

  3. BioChem agrar GmbH, Kupferstraße 6, 04827, Gerichshain, Germany

    Markus Barth & Sabine Friedrich

Authors
  1. Gregor Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Kabouw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Barth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael T. Marx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ursula Frommholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefanie Royer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sabine Friedrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregor Ernst.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ernst, G., Kabouw, P., Barth, M. et al. Assessing the potential for intrinsic recovery in a Collembola two-generation study: possible implementation in a tiered soil risk assessment approach for plant protection products. Ecotoxicology 25, 1–14 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-015-1560-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-015-1560-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation