A critical review of effect modeling for ecological risk assessment of plant protection products

A wide diversity of plant protection products (PPP) is used for crop protection leading to the contamination of soil, water, and air, which can have ecotoxicological impacts on living organisms. It is inconceivable to study the effects of each compound on each species from each compartment, experimental studies being time consuming and cost prohibitive, and animal testing having to be avoided. Therefore, numerous models are developed to assess PPP ecotoxicological effects. Our objective was to provide an overview of the modeling approaches enabling the assessment of PPP effects (including biopesticides) on the biota. Six categories of models were inventoried: (Q)SAR, DR and TKTD, population, multi-species, landscape, and mixture models. They were developed for various species (terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, primary producers, micro-organisms) belonging to diverse environmental compartments, to address different goals (e.g., species sensitivity or PPP bioaccumulation assessment, ecosystem services protection). Among them, mechanistic models are increasingly recognized by EFSA for PPP regulatory risk assessment but, to date, remain not considered in notified guidance documents. The strengths and limits of the reviewed models are discussed together with improvement avenues (multigenerational effects, multiple biotic and abiotic stressors). This review also underlines a lack of model testing by means of field data and of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Accurate and robust modeling of PPP effects and other stressors on living organisms, from their application in the field to their functional consequences on the ecosystems at different scales of time and space, would help going toward a more sustainable management of the environment. Graphical Abstract Combination of the keyword lists composing the first bibliographic query. Columns were joined together with the logical operator AND. All keyword lists are available in Supplementary Information at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5775038 (Larras et al. 2021).