International audience | Estimating the consequences of environmental changes, specifically in a global change context, is essential for conservation issues. In the case of pollutants, the interest in using an evolutionary approach to investigate their consequences has been emphasized since the 2000s, but these studies remain rare compared to the characterization of direct effects on individual features. We focused on the study case of anthropogenic ionizing radiation because, despite its potential strong impact on evolution, the scarcity of evolutionary approaches to study the biological consequences of this stressor is particularly true. In this study, by investigating some particular features of the biological effects of this stressor, and by reviewing existing studies on evolution under ionizing radiation, we suggest that evolutionary approach may help provide an integrative view on the biological consequences of ionizing radiation. We focused on three topics: (i) the mutagenic properties of ionizing radiation and its disruption of evolutionary processes, (ii) exposures at different time scales, leading to an interaction between past and contemporary evolution, and (iii) the special features of contaminated areas called exclusion zones and how evolution could match field and laboratory observed effects. This approach can contribute to answering several key issues in radioecology: to explain species differences in the sensitivity to ionizing radiation, to improve our estimation of the impacts of ionizing radiation on populations, and to help identify the environmental features impacting organisms (e.g., interaction with other pollution, migration of populations, anthropogenic environmental changes). Evolutionary approach would benefit from being integrated to the ecological risk assessment process.

International audience | 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 (micro 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.

International audience | The application of plant protection products (PPPs) may have delayed and long-term non-intentional impacts on aquatic invertebrates inhabiting agricultural landscapes. Such effects may induce population responses based on developmental and transgenerational plasticity, selection of genetic resistance, as well as increased extirpation risks associated with random genetic drift. While the current knowledge on such effects of PPPs is still scarce in non-target aquatic invertebrate species, evidences are accumulating that support the need for consideration of evolutionary components of the population response to PPPs in standard procedures of risk assessment. This mini-review, as part of a contribution to the collective scientific assessment on PPP impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services performed in the period 2020-2022, presents a brief survey of the current results published on the subject, mainly in freshwater crustaceans, and proposes some research avenues and strategies that we feel relevant to fill this gap.

International audience | Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of insecticides in the world but they have raised numerous concerns regarding their effects on biodiversity. Thus, the objective of this work was to do a critical review of the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air, biota) by neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam) and of their impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are very frequently detected in soils and in freshwater, and they are also found in the air. They have only been recently monitored in coastal and marine environments, but some studies already reported the presence of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in transitional or semi-enclosed ecosystems (lagoons, bays and estuaries). The contamination of the environment leads to the exposure and to the contamination of non-target organisms, and to negative effects on biodiversity. Direct impacts of neonicotinoids are mainly reported on terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., pollinators, natural enemies, earthworms) and vertebrates (e.g., birds), and on aquatic invertebrates (e.g., arthropods). Impacts on aquatic vertebrate populations and communities, as well as on microorganisms, are less documented. In addition to their toxicity to directly exposed organisms, neonicotinoid induce indirect effects via trophic cascades as demonstrated in several species (terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates). However, more data are needed to reach firmer conclusions and to get a clearer picture of such indirect effects. Finally, we identified specific knowledge gaps that need to be filled to better understand the effects of neonicotinoids on terrestrial, freshwater and marine organisms, as well as on ecosystem services associated with these biotas.

International audience | 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.