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.

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.

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020–2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA’s main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

International audience | Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020–2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.

Copper-based plant protection products (PPPs) are widely used in both conventional and organic farming, and to a lesser extent for non-agricultural maintenance of gardens, greenspaces, and infrastructures. The use of copper PPPs adds to environmental contamination by this trace element. This paper aims to review the contribution of these PPPs to the contamination of soils and waters by copper in the context of France (which can be extrapolated to most of the European countries), and the resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, as well as on ecosystem functions. It was produced in the framework of a collective scientific assessment on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France. Current science shows that copper, which persists in soils, can partially transfer to adjacent aquatic environments (surface water and sediment) and ultimately to the marine environment. This widespread contamination impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functions, chiefly through its effects on phototrophic and heterotrophic microbial communities, and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Its effects on other biological groups and biotic interactions remain relatively under-documented.

International audience | Copper-based plant protection products (PPPs) are widely used in both conventional and organic farming, and to a lesser extent for non-agricultural maintenance of gardens, greenspaces, and infrastructures. The use of copper PPPs adds to environmental contamination by this trace element. This paper aims to review the contribution of these PPPs to the contamination of soils and waters by copper in the context of France (which can be extrapolated to most of the European countries), and the resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, as well as on ecosystem functions. It was produced in the framework of a collective scientific assessment on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France. Current science shows that copper, which persists in soils, can partially transfer to adjacent aquatic environments (surface water and sediment) and ultimately to the marine environment. This widespread contamination impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functions, chiefly through its effects on phototrophic and heterotrophic microbial communities, and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Its effects on other biological groups and biotic interactions remain relatively under-documented.

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 | 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.

There is growing interest in using the ecosystem services framework for environmental risk assessments of chemicals, including plant protection products (PPPs). Although this topic is increasingly discussed in the recent scientific literature, there is still a substantial gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid evaluation of potential ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services. This was recently highlighted by a collective scientific assessment (CSA) performed by 46 scientific experts who analyzed the international science on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. Here, we first point out the main obstacles to better linking knowledge on the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecological processes with ecosystem functions and services. Then, we go on to propose and discuss possible pathways for related improvements. We describe the main processes governing the relationships between biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem functions in response to effects of PPP, and we define categories of ecosystem functions that could be directly linked with the ecological processes used as functional endpoints in investigations on the ecotoxicology of PPPs. We then explore perceptions on the possible links between these categories of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services among a sub-panel of the scientific experts from various fields of environmental science. We find that these direct and indirect linkages still need clarification. This paper, which reflects the difficulties faced by the multidisciplinary group of researchers involved in the CSA, suggests that the current gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid potential evaluation of ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services could be partially addressed if concepts and definitions related to ecological processes, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services were more widely accepted and shared within the ecotoxicology community. Narrowing this gap would help harmonize and extend the science that informs decision-making and policy-making, and ultimately help to better address the trade-off between social benefits and environmental losses caused by the use of PPPs.

International audience | There is growing interest in using the ecosystem services framework for environmental risk assessments of chemicals, including plant protection products (PPPs). Although this topic is increasingly discussed in the recent scientific literature, there is still a substantial gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid evaluation of potential ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services. This was recently highlighted by a collective scientific assessment (CSA) performed by 46 scientific experts who analyzed the international science on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. Here, we first point out the main obstacles to better linking knowledge on the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecological processes with ecosystem functions and services. Then, we go on to propose and discuss possible pathways for related improvements. We describe the main processes governing the relationships between biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem functions in response to effects of PPP, and we define categories of ecosystem functions that could be directly linked with the ecological processes used as functional endpoints in investigations on the ecotoxicology of PPPs. We then explore perceptions on the possible links between these categories of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services among a sub-panel of the scientific experts from various fields of environmental science. We find that these direct and indirect linkages still need clarification. This paper, which reflects the difficulties faced by the multidisciplinary group of researchers involved in the CSA, suggests that the current gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid potential evaluation of ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services could be partially addressed if concepts and definitions related to ecological processes, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services were more widely accepted and shared within the ecotoxicology community. Narrowing this gap would help harmonize and extend the science that informs decision-making and policy-making, and ultimately help to better address the trade-off between social benefits and environmental losses caused by the use of PPPs.

Environmental compartments are contaminated by a broad spectrum of plant protection products (PPPs) that are currently widely used in agriculture or, for some of them, whose use was banned many years ago. The aim of this study is to draw up an overview of the levels of contamination of soils, continental aquatic environments, seawaters and atmosphere by organic PPPs in France and the French overseas territories, based on data from the scientific publications and the grey literature. It is difficult to establish an exhaustive picture of the overall contamination of the environment because the various compartments monitored, the monitoring frequencies, the duration of the studies and the lists of substances are not the same. Of the 33 PPPs most often recorded at high concentration levels in at least one compartment, 5 are insecticides, 9 are fungicides, 15 are herbicides and 4 are transformation products. The PPP contamination of the environment shows generally a seasonal variation according to crop cycles. On a pluriannual scale, the contamination trends are linked to the level of use driven by the pest pressure, and especially to the ban of PPP. Overall, the quality of the data acquired has been improved thanks to new, more integrative sampling strategies and broad-spectrum analysis methods that make it possible to incorporate the search for emerging contaminants such as PPP transformation products. Taking into account additional information (such as the quantities applied, agricultural practices, meteorological conditions, the properties of PPPs and environmental conditions) combined with modelling tools will make it possible to better assess and understand the fate and transport of PPPs in the environment, inter-compartment transfers and to identify their potential impacts. Simultaneous monitoring of all environmental compartments as well as biota in selected and limited relevant areas would also help in this assessment.

International audience | Environmental compartments are contaminated by a broad spectrum of plant protection products (PPPs) that are currently widely used in agriculture or, for some of them, whose use was banned many years ago. The aim of this study is to draw up an overview of the levels of contamination of soils, continental aquatic environments, seawaters and atmosphere by organic PPPs in France and the French overseas territories, based on data from the scientific publications and the grey literature. It is difficult to establish an exhaustive picture of the overall contamination of the environment because the various compartments monitored, the monitoring frequencies, the duration of the studies and the lists of substances are not the same. Of the 33 PPPs most often recorded at high concentration levels in at least one compartment, 5 are insecticides, 9 are fungicides, 15 are herbicides and 4 are transformation products. The PPP contamination of the environment shows generally a seasonal variation according to crop cycles. On a pluriannual scale, the contamination trends are linked to the level of use driven by the pest pressure, and especially to the ban of PPP. Overall, the quality of the data acquired has been improved thanks to new, more integrative sampling strategies and broad-spectrum analysis methods that make it possible to incorporate the search for emerging contaminants such as PPP transformation products. Taking into account additional information (such as the quantities applied, agricultural practices, meteorological conditions, the properties of PPPs and environmental conditions) combined with modelling tools will make it possible to better assess and understand the fate and transport of PPPs in the environment, inter-compartment transfers and to identify their potential impacts. Simultaneous monitoring of all environmental compartments as well as biota in selected and limited relevant areas would also help in this assessment.