Biodiversity Decline as a Consequence of an Inappropriate Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides

Abstract

Risk Management Instead of Assessment
The development of a new systemic approach for ERA will take considerable time and require substantial resources. We therefore also need to discuss other options to at least halt the negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity of the agricultural landscape. Risk management to mitigate negative pesticide effects might be a helpful alternative until we are able to assess the true environmental risk of pesticide usage. Reducing pesticides in agricultural practice is an obvious option. It was estimated that total pesticide use could be reduced by more than 40% in almost 60% of 946 evaluated farms in a French network without any negative effects on both productivity and profitability (Lechenet et al., 2017). Integrated pest management should focus on using natural enemies of pests and crop rotations and agree on pesticides as a last option instead of current practices, where pesticides are prophylactically implemented in farming practices (e.g., seed-treatments of cereals). We additionally could extend the proportion of semi-natural habitats without pesticide inputs in the agricultural landscape, increase agri-environmental schemes and enlarge the area of organic farming. Many options are on the table and a strengthening of the greening of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is currently discussed for the coming period of European policy (Erjavec and Erjavec, 2015; Solazzo et al., 2016; Alons, 2017). Risk mitigation of pesticides needs to be implemented effectively and at a large scale to bend the curve of biodiversity decline in agricultural landscapes now. If we delay to change agricultural practice and its current pesticide use our efforts to stop the current biodiversity decline and restore it to former levels need to be much larger at a later stage.

Full text

OPINION
published: 31 October 2019
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177
Frontiers in Environmental Science | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2019 | Volume 7 | Article 177
Edited by:
Annemarie Van Wezel,
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Reviewed by:
Jane A. Entwistle,
Northumbria University,
United Kingdom
*Correspondence:
Carsten A. Brühl
bruehl@uni-landau.de
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Toxicology, Pollution and the
Environment,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Received: 03 April 2019
Accepted: 16 October 2019
Published: 31 October 2019
Citation:
Brühl CA and Zaller JG (2019)
Biodiversity Decline as a
Consequence of an Inappropriate
Environmental Risk Assessment of
Pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 7:177.
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177
Biodiversity Decline as a
Consequence of an Inappropriate
Environmental Risk Assessment of
Pesticides
Carsten A. Brühl 1
*and Johann G. Zaller 2
1Community Ecology and Ecotoxicology, iES Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau,
Landau, Germany, 2Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Zoology, University of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria
Keywords: ecotoxicology, plant protection products, agroecology, regulatory, EU
The widespread contamination of ecosystems with plant protection products (pesticides in this
text) around the world is evident (Hoferkamp et al., 2010; Shunthirasingham et al., 2011; Stehle
and Schulz, 2015a; Ferrario et al., 2017; Hvˇ
ezdová et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2019). Pesticide effects
on the physiology, activity and diversity of various aquatic and terrestrial non-target organisms
is addressed by numerous studies, and many new aspects are also described in a recent Frontiers
Research Topic.
We currently observe a deterioration of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, and the dramatic
losses are increasingly discussed by the public (European Commission, 2018a). Declines of
insect biomass of more than 70% in the last few decades in Germany, the halving of farmland
bird populations in Europe and effects on pollinators are widely known (Donald et al., 2001;
Potts et al., 2010; Hallmann et al., 2017). Out of a set of recorded parameters of agricultural
intensification (such as field size, fertilizer application, landscape heterogeneity) a unique, pan-
European study identified pesticide application as the responsible factor for lower biodiversity
of plants, ground beetles, and birds in wheat fields (Geiger et al., 2010). Recently, a review
recognized chemical pollution including pesticides as the second most important driver for the
worldwide decline in insect populations (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019). Other drivers were
habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture, fertilizer inputs, introduced species, and
climate change.
There is agreement in the scientific community that pesticides are a central responsible factor
for the observed terrestrial biodiversity declines. However, pesticides are perceived also as the
chemicals with the strictest regulation, requiring an in-depth Environmental Risk Assessment
(ERA) for registration in the European Union (European Parliament, 2009). This procedure
includes the performance of a set of toxicity studies and calculations using predicted exposure
values to calculate a risk. If the risk is deemed acceptable pesticides can be placed on the market
(for an overview see.g. Storck et al., 2017). Interestingly during this step of the authorization
process the “acceptable risk” is leading to pesticides considered “safe” for the environment (EFSA,
2019). Farmers, assuming they are using “safe” pesticides, are currently confronted with the public,
blaming them for the observed declines of biodiversity. It seems that the ERA for pesticide
regulation as currently carried out is inappropriate since it cannot prevent that registered and
commonly used pesticides have detrimental effects on our environment.
In the last decade we have seen an increasing complexity in ERA of pesticides. The European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as the responsible authority for pesticide registration in Europe,
published guidance documents describing the required studies for different groups of aquatic and
terrestrial organisms and their implementation in risk calculations (EFSA, 2010, 2013a). For the

Brühl and Zaller Biodiversity Unprotected by Pesticide Regulation
terrestrial environment there are also specific documents for
birds and mammals as well as for bees (EFSA, 2009, 2013b).
Furthermore, EFSA also recently published scientific opinions
on in-soil organisms, non-target arthropods, amphibians, and
reptiles as well as non-target terrestrial plants calling for
improvement of ERA for the respective groups (EFSA, 2014,
2015, 2017, 2018). In some instances, such as for the currently
neglected amphibians and reptiles, standard toxicity studies to
produce reliable endpoints are lacking and the entire ERA is
not even outlined yet. Scientific opinions are documents that
highlight steps in ERA that need to be improved. However, the
ERA is still performed as before until a guidance document
is issued.
The current scheme for ERA of pesticides was also
recently addressed by the group of chief scientific advisors,
recommending among others the setting of unambiguous and
quantifiable protection goals and structural changes of the
registration process in the EU (European Commission, 2018b).
The majority of the members of the European parliament agreed
on a motion for a resolution on the authorization procedure for
pesticides that mentions concern regarding the widespread use
of pesticides and a lack of public knowledge about hazard and
risk of pesticide use (European Parliament, 2018). A few scientific
assessments of the European ERA scheme and its shortcomings
exist (e.g. Newman et al., 2006; Schäfer et al., 2011; Stehle and
Schulz, 2015b; Storck et al., 2017). Main points that are often
raised are the inclusion of new test or surrogate species, the
extension of studies to more realistic scenarios, the validity of
the used uncertainty (assessment) factors, the lack of including
sublethal endpoints in risk assessments and the need to address
ignored groups of organisms (e.g. Jänsch et al., 2006; Desneux
et al., 2007; Stahlschmidt and Brühl, 2012; Brühl et al., 2013). The
consideration of interactions of pesticide effects with additional
stressors such as nutrients or climate change was also pointed out
(Köhler and Triebskorn, 2013; Baier et al., 2016).
But instead of highlighting all the open questions on various
stages of a complex ERA scheme we consider it necessary to step
back and address its entire structure. The observed biodiversity
declines in European agricultural landscapes are mostly discussed
for terrestrial organisms and not for aquatic systems. We will
therefore specifically focus on the terrestrial part of ERA.
APPLICATION SEQUENCES IN PESTICIDE
USE
The existing ERA is performed for one active substance or
pesticide product that is applied once or a few times in a
specific crop. However, the current cropping systems do not
only receive one application of a pesticide. Their seeds might
be already treated with a mixture of multiple systemic pesticides
and several further products are applied on the growing plants
or fruits during the season. In Germany in 2016 on average
there were 6 pesticides applied (treatment index) in wheat,
7 in oilseed rape, 14 in potatoes, 22 in vine orchards, and
32 in apple production orchards (JKI, 2019). In the UK even
more pesticides were used for the same crops: 11 pesticides
for wheat, 13 for oilseed rape, and 21 for potatoes (FERA,
2017). Outside the EU maximum pesticide inputs as in banana
in Costa Rica, where aerial applications are conducted in
conventional plantations every 4 days, result in volumes of
over 75 kg of active molecules/ha/year. It is obvious to every
ecotoxicologist and ecologist that multiple, sequential field
applications of biologically active chemicals are likely to cause
more severe effects on a population of organisms than a single
application event. However, the current risk assessment assumes
that populations only face a single impact from a specific
pesticide, with sufficient time following after application to
allow the population to recover to former levels. In reality the
same population is facing multiple pesticide impacts during the
growing season. This is a worrying underestimation of the actual
risk for biodiversity in the agricultural landscape resulting from
pesticide use. Similar concerns of an underestimation of effects
of contamination with multiple pesticides and other chemicals
are also raised for human health (Leu and Shiva, 2014).
INDIRECT EFFECTS
The current ERA scheme addresses the effects of a pesticide
on each group of organisms separately. There are ERA sections
on plants, on insects and spiders (arthropods) and birds.
Field studies are sometimes performed for arthropods, where
interactions between predatory insects and their prey is recorded.
However, ERA does not include so-called indirect effects or
interactions between trophic levels of different organism groups.
An example can be seen in an herbicide that has no acute toxic
effect on insects as well as birds and therefore passes the current
risk assessment for both groups. However, the application of
the herbicide leads to a reduction of “weeds” (as intended in
the field) and of “non-target plants” (the same plant species
growing outside the field), therefore reducing the amount of
food for pollinators and herbivorous insects. This depletion can
lead to further impacts on birds since herbivorous insect larvae,
such as caterpillars, are smaller and less abundant after herbicide
treatments (Hahn et al., 2014), reducing the insect biomass
available to feed the birds offspring. Trophic interactions are
fundamental features of ecosystems and therefore need to be
considered in ERA.
IN-FIELD EFFECTS ON BIODIVERSITY
The European ERA focusses on environmental effects that can
occur in semi-natural structures outside the agricultural fields.
Currently no ERA for the in-field risk is mandated. However,
the scientific opinion for non-target arthropods, mentions
“biodiversity has to be supported to a certain degree in the
in-field areas (. . . ) in order to provide important ecosystem
services (EFSA, 2015).” However, the respective guideline is
not addressing this issue and negative effects on biodiversity
are therefore deliberately accepted in the cropping area where
pesticides are directly applied at biologically effective rates.
The agricultural cropping area that receives pesticide inputs in
Europe represents 22% of the total land area, reaching more
Frontiers in Environmental Science | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2019 | Volume 7 | Article 177

Brühl and Zaller Biodiversity Unprotected by Pesticide Regulation
than 30% for example in Germany and France (for 2015,
Eurostat, 2019). Therefore, in countries with a high proportion
of cropped area almost a third of the terrestrial land surface
is not evaluated regarding negative effects of pesticides on its
biodiversity. To explain the observed decline in insect biomass
in the agricultural landscape of Germany (Hallmann et al., 2017)
the most parsimonious explanation (Occam’s razor) is the annual
application of insecticides on more than 30% of Germanys land
area, the entire cropping area, since the 1970s. No other factor
such as the suggested light pollution or soil sealing needs to be
invoked to explain the observed reductions (BMU, 2018).
The ERA required for pesticide regulation is in most cases
not addressing the impact of pesticide use in agricultural
fields and does not include food-web related ecosystem effects.
This fundamental misconception leads to an ERA scheme
and a resulting pesticide regulation that is not protective for
biodiversity. If we remain working with the ERA scheme in place,
in our opinion we will continue to observe further declines of
many groups of organisms such as farmland birds and insects in
the agricultural landscape. Neglecting the three described factors
can have far-reaching consequences at the ecosystem level that
are likely larger than an underestimation of risk due to a lower
uncertainty factor or a flaw in the experimental design of a
field study. The misconception can also not be compensated
by additional studies including new surrogate species or groups
of organisms. The banning of certain insecticides or broad-
band herbicides will also hardly improve the situation. We
therefore urgently need to rethink our basis for the regulation
of these biologically active substances and develop a holistic
approach to include indirect effects caused by multiple pesticides
applied in the agricultural productive land area of Europe.
Since the current ERA for the regulation of pesticides is not
addressing the real-world situation we ought to accept that
the current practice of pesticide use in European agriculture
is not sufficiently protective and therefore not safe for the
terrestrial environment.
RISK MANAGEMENT INSTEAD OF
ASSESSMENT
The development of a new systemic approach for ERA will
take considerable time and require substantial resources. We
therefore also need to discuss other options to at least halt the
negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity of the agricultural
landscape. Risk management to mitigate negative pesticide effects
might be a helpful alternative until we are able to assess the
true environmental risk of pesticide usage. Reducing pesticides
in agricultural practice is an obvious option. It was estimated that
total pesticide use could be reduced by more than 40% in almost
60% of 946 evaluated farms in a French network without any
negative effects on both productivity and profitability (Lechenet
et al., 2017). Integrated pest management should focus on
using natural enemies of pests and crop rotations and agree
on pesticides as a last option instead of current practices,
where pesticides are prophylactically implemented in farming
practices (e.g., seed-treatments of cereals). We additionally could
extend the proportion of semi-natural habitats without pesticide
inputs in the agricultural landscape, increase agri-environmental
schemes and enlarge the area of organic farming. Many options
are on the table and a strengthening of the greening of the
common agricultural policy (CAP) is currently discussed for the
coming period of European policy (Erjavec and Erjavec, 2015;
Solazzo et al., 2016; Alons, 2017). Risk mitigation of pesticides
needs to be implemented effectively and at a large scale to bend
the curve of biodiversity decline in agricultural landscapes now. If
we delay to change agricultural practice and its current pesticide
use our efforts to stop the current biodiversity decline and restore
it to former levels need to be much larger at a later stage.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual
contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CB thanks colleagues and the students of the Ecotoxicology
courses at the iES in Landau and at Universidad Nacional
Costa Rica in Heredia for many intense discussions. Special
thanks go to Marjon Belderbos and Clemes Ruepert for their
hospitality and the tranquility of the garden house with the
motmot that inspired this text. We also thank the reviewers and
editor for helpful comments on earlier versions of this opinion.
Open access publication was supported by BOKU (University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences) Vienna Open Access
Publishing Fund.
REFERENCES
Alons, G. (2017). Environmental policy integration in the EU’s
common agricultural policy: greening or greenwashing? J.
Eur. Publ. Pol. 24, 1604–1622. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.13
34085
Baier, F., Gruber, E., Hein, T., Bondar-Kunze, E., Ivankovi´
c, M., Mentler, A., et al.
(2016). Non-target effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on Common toad
larvae (Bufo bufo, Amphibia) and associated algae are altered by temperature.
PeerJ 4:e2641. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2641
BMU (2018). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany. Aktionsprogramm
Insektenschutz “der Bundesregierung Diskussionsvorschläge des BMU für
Maßnahmen. 20 pp. Available online at: www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/
Download_PDF/Artenschutz/massnahmen_insektenschutz_bf.pdf (accessed
March 27, 2019).
Brühl, C. A., Schmidt, T., Pieper, S., and Alscher, A. (2013). Terrestrial pesticide
exposure of amphibians: an underestimated cause of global decline? Sci. Rep.
3:1135. doi: 10.1038/srep01135
Desneux, N., Decourtye, A., and Delpuech, J. M. (2007). The sublethal effects
of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 81–106.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091440
Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., and Heath, M. F. (2001). Agricultural intensification
and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
268, 25–29. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1325
EFSA (2009). Guidance document on risk assessment for birds and mammals on
request from EFSA. EFSA J. 7:358. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1438
Frontiers in Environmental Science | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2019 | Volume 7 | Article 177

Brühl and Zaller Biodiversity Unprotected by Pesticide Regulation
EFSA (2010). Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal
options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in
relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial
Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J. 8:1821.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1821
EFSA (2013a). Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products
for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA J. 11:290.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290
EFSA (2013b). EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection
products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J.
11:3295. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295
EFSA (2014). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk
assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants. EFSA
J. 12:3800. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3800
EFSA (2015). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk
assessment of plant protection products for non-target arthropods. EFSA J.
13:3996. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3996
EFSA (2017). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk
assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. EFSA J. 15:4690.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4690
EFSA (2018). Scientific Opinion on the state of the science on pesticide
risk assessment for amphibians and reptiles. EFSA J. 16:5125.
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5125
EFSA (2019). Pesticide Autorisation Procedure. Available online at: https://
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/interactive-pages/pesticides-authorisation/Pesticides
Authorisation (accessed August 23, 2019).
Erjavec, K., and Erjavec, E. (2015). ‘Greening the CAP’–Just a fashionable
justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents.
Food Policy. 51, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.006
European Commission (2018a). “Science for Environment Policy”: Flying Insects in
West German Nature Reserves Suffer Decline of More Than 76% (1973–2000).
European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service. Available
online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/
pdf/flying_insects_west_german_nature_reserves_suffer_decline_more_than_
76pc_1973_2000_511na1_en.pdf (accessed March 27, 2019).
European Commission (2018b). EU Authorisation Processes of Plant Protection
Products - from a Scientific Point of View. Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.
76. doi: 10.2777/238919
European Parliament (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Concerning the
Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market. Official Journal of
the European Union. 50p. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF (accessed
March 27, 2019).
European Parliament (2018). Report on the Union’s Authorisation Procedure for
Pesticides (2018/2153(INI)) Special Committee on the Union’s Authorisation
Procedure for Pesticides. Available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
doceo/document/A-8-2018- 0475_EN.html (accessed March 27, 2019).
Eurostat (2019). EU Land Cover Statistics. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Land_cover_statistics (accessed March
27, 2019).
FERA (2017). Arable Crops in the United Kingdom 2016. 96. Available
online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pesticide-usage-survey-
arable-crops-in-the- uk-2016 (accessed Mar 27, 2019).
Ferrario, C., Finizio, A., and Villa, S. (2017). Legacy and emerging contaminants
in meltwater of three Alpine glaciers. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 350–357.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.067
Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W. W., Emmerson, M., Morales,
M. B., et al. (2010). Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and
biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 97–105.
doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001
Hahn, M., Geisthardt, M., and Brühl, C. A. (2014). Effects of herbicide-treated
host plants on the development of Mamestra brassicae L. caterpillars. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 33, 2633–2638. doi: 10.1002/etc.2726
Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., et al.
(2017). More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass
in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 12:e0185809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Hoferkamp, L., Hermanson, M. H., and Muir, D. C. (2010). Current use
pesticides in Arctic media; 2000–2007. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2985–2994.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.038
Hvˇ
ezdová, M., Kosubová, P., Košíková, M., Scherr, K. E., Šimek, Z., Brodský, L.
et al. (2018). Currently and recently used pesticides in Central European arable
soils. Sci. Total Environ. 613, 361–370. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.049
Jänsch, S., Frampton, G. K., Römbke, J., Van den Brink, P. J., and Scott-Fordsmand,
J. J. (2006). Effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates in model ecosystem and
field studies: a review and comparison with laboratory toxicity data. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 25, 2490–2501. doi: 10.1897/05-439R.1
JKI (2019). Ergebnisse, Behandlungsindex. Available online at: https://papa.julius-
kuehn.de (accessed Mar 27, 2019).
Köhler, H. R., and Triebskorn, R. (2013). Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can
we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341, 759–765.
doi: 10.1126/science.1237591
Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D., and Munier-Jolain, N. (2017).
Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on
arable farms. Nat. Plants 3:17008. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.8
Leu, A., and Shiva, V. (2014). The Myths of Safe Pesticides. Austin, TX: Acres. 142.
Newman, M. C., Crane, M., and Holloway, G. (2006). “Does pesticide risk
assessment in the European Union assess long-term effects?” in Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 187, ed G. W. Ware (New
York, NY: Springer), 1–65.
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., and Kunin,
W. E. (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
Sánchez-Bayo, F., and Wyckhuys, K. A. (2019). Worldwide decline of
the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27.
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020
Schäfer, R. B., van den Brink, P. J., and Liess, M. (2011). “Impacts of pesticides
on freshwater ecosystems,” in Ecological Impacts of Toxic Chemicals, eds F.
Sánchez-Bayo, P. J. van den Brink, and R. M. Mann (Sharjah: Bentham Science
Publishers), 111–137. doi: 10.2174/97816080512121110101
Shunthirasingham, C., Gouin, T., Lei, Y. D., Ruepert, C., Castillo, L. E., and
Wania, F. (2011). Current-use pesticide transport to Costa Rica’s high-altitude
tropical cloud forest. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30, 2709–2717. doi: 10.1002/
etc.671
Silva, V., Mol, H. G., Zomer, P., Tienstra, M., Ritsema, C. J., and Geissen, V.
(2019). Pesticide residues in European agricultural soils – A hidden reality
unfolded. Sci. Total Environ. 653, 1532–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.
10.441
Solazzo, R., Donati, M., Tomasi, L., and Arfini, F. (2016). How effective is greening
policy in reducing GHG emissions from agriculture? Evidence from Italy. Sci.
Total Environ. 573, 1115–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.066
Stahlschmidt, P., and Brühl, C. A. (2012). Bats at risk? Bat activity and insecticide
residue analysis of food items in an apple orchard. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31,
1556–1563. doi: 10.1002/etc.1834
Stehle, S., and Schulz, R. (2015a). Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters
at the global scale. PNAS 112, 5750–5755. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500232112
Stehle, S., and Schulz, R. (2015b). Pesticide authorization in the EU—
environment unprotected? Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 22, 19632–19647.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5148-5
Storck, V., Karpouzas, D. G., and Martin-Laurent, F. (2017). Towards a better
pesticide policy for the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 1027–1033.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.167
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Brühl and Zaller. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Environmental Science | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2019 | Volume 7 | Article 177