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.

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.

In aquatic ecosystems, microalgae are exposed to light fluctuations at different frequencies due to daily and seasonal changes. Although concentrations of herbicides are lower in Arctic than in temperate regions, atrazine and simazine, are increasingly found in northern aquatic systems because of long-distance aerial dispersal of widespread applications in the south and antifouling biocides used on ships. The toxic effects of atrazine on temperate microalgae are well documented, but very little is known about their effects on Arctic marine microalgae in relation to their temperate counterparts after light adaptation to variable light intensities. We therefore investigated the impacts of atrazine and simazine on photosynthetic activity, PSII energy fluxes, pigment content, photoprotective ability (NPQ), and reactive oxygen species (ROS) content under three light intensities. The goal was to better understand differences in physiological responses to light fluctuations between Arctic and temperate microalgae and to determine how these different characteristics affect their responses to herbicides. The Arctic diatom Chaetoceros showed stronger light adaptation capacity than the Arctic green algae Micromonas. Atrazine and simazine inhibited the growth and photosynthetic electron transport, affected the pigment content, and disturbed the energy balance between light absorption and utilization. As a result, during high light adaptation and in the presence of herbicides, photoprotective pigments were synthesized and NPQ was highly activated. Nevertheless, these protective responses were insufficient to prevent oxidative damage caused by herbicides in both species from both regions, but at different extent depending on the species. Our study demonstrates that light is important in regulating herbicide toxicity in both Arctic and temperate microalgal strains. Moreover, eco-physiological differences in light responses are likely to support changes in the algal community, especially as the Arctic ocean becomes more polluted and bright with continued human impacts.

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.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) currently supports chemical and ecological monitoring programmes in order to achieve the good water surface status. Although chemical and ecological assessments are necessary, they have some limitations. Chemical approaches focus on certain substances identified as priorities, but they do not take into account other potentially harmful substances and also ignore the hazards related to contaminant cocktails. On the other hand, while ecological approaches provide holistic information on the impairment of biological communities in ecosystems, they do not distinguish the role of contaminants in these alterations, and consequently do not allow the establishment of contaminant impact reduction plans. Consequently, ecotoxicologists suggest the use of effect-based tools such as biomarkers. Biomarkers highlight the effect of potentially harmful substances (or a cocktail), and their specificity towards the chemicals makes it possible to properly discriminate the role of toxicants within biological community impairments. Thus, the integration of such tools (besides existing chemical and ecological tools) in the WFD could considerably improve its biomonitoring strategy. The B n' B project (Biomarkers and Biodiversity) exposes key objectives that will allow to (i) establish an inventory of the biomarkers developed by French laboratories; (ii) determine their methodological advancement and limits and, on this basis, formulate recommendations for biomonitoring use and future research needs; (iii) discuss the biomarkers' ecological significance, specificity to contaminants and interpretation capacity; (iv) establish, in fine, a selection of valuable biomarkers to enter the WFD; and (iv) propose integrative tools to facilitate the decision-taking by stakeholders.