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.

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 intensification of agriculture has promoted the simplification and specialization of agroecosystems, resulting in negative impacts such as decreasing landscape heterogeneity and increasing use of plant protection products (PPP), with the acceleration of PPP transfers to environmental compartments and loss in biodiversity. In this context, the present work reviews the various levers for action promoting the prevention and management of these transfers in the environment and the available modelling tools. Two main categories of levers were identified: (1) better control of the application, including the reduction of doses and of PPP dispersion during application thanks to appropriate equipment and settings, PPP formulations, and consideration of meteorological conditions; (2) reduction of post-application transfers at plot scales (soil cover, low tillage, organic matter management, remediation…) and at landscape scales using either dry (grassed strips, forest, hedgerows, ditches) or wet (ponds, mangroves, stormwater basins) buffer zones. The management of PPP residues leftover in the spray tanks (biobeds) also represents a lever for limiting point-source PPP pollution. Numerous models have been developed to simulate the transfers of PPPs at plot scales. They are scarce for landscape scales. A few are used for regulatory risk assessment. These models could still be improved, for example, if current agricultural practices (e.g. agroecological practices, biopesticides), and their effect on PPP transfers, were better described. If operated alone, none of the levers guarantee a zero risk of PPP transfer. However, if levers are applied in a combined manner, PPP transfers could be more easily limited (agricultural practices, landscape organization...).

The intensification of agriculture has promoted the simplification and specialization of agroecosystems, resulting in negative impacts such as decreasing landscape heterogeneity and increasing use of plant protection products (PPP), with the acceleration of PPP transfers to environmental compartments and loss in biodiversity. In this context, the present work reviews the various levers for action promoting the prevention and management of these transfers in the environment and the available modelling tools. Two main categories of levers were identified: (1) better control of the application, including the reduction of doses and of PPP dispersion during application thanks to appropriate equipment and settings, PPP formulations and consideration of meteorological conditions; (2) reduction of post-application transfers at plot scales (soil cover, low tillage, organic matter management, remediation etc. and at landscape scales using either dry (grassed strips, forest, hedgerows and ditches) or wet (ponds, mangroves and stormwater basins) buffer zones. The management of PPP residues leftover in the spray tanks (biobeds) also represents a lever for limiting point-source PPP pollution. Numerous models have been developed to simulate the transfers of PPPs at plot scales. They are scarce for landscape scales. A few are used for regulatory risk assessment. These models could still be improved, for example, if current agricultural practices (e.g. agro-ecological practices and biopesticides), and their effect on PPP transfers were better described. If operated alone, none of the levers guarantee a zero risk of PPP transfer. However, if levers are applied in a combined manner, PPP transfers could be more easily limited (agricultural practices, landscape organization etc.).

International audience | Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them.

Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them.