General Surveillance of the soil ecosystem: An approach to monitoring unexpected adverse effects of GMO's

The commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) necessitates, according to EU legislation, the setting up of a General Surveillance (GS) system that should be able to detect unanticipated effects of GM crops on the environment. Although the applicant is responsible for setting up GS as well as for reporting the results, EU Member States may implement additional supporting surveillance programmes. Devising a GS system to detect unanticipated effects is not straightforward and requires clearly defined protection goals, suitable indicators that are linked to measurable parameters and an objective system for assessing the data. This paper describes a number of recommendations for the development of a General Surveillance system of the soil ecosystem specifically focussed on the situation in the Netherlands. The overarching protection goal of General Surveillance is ‘soil quality’, which is translated into more practical terms of ecosystem services that are relevant for soil quality, and that can be used to select measurable parameters and thus make a link with actual measurements. Ultimately, if and when effects on ecosystem services are detected, decision makers will have to decide whether these effects are acceptable or not. As a support for these decision-making processes, this paper discusses the modalities for the development of a stakeholder participation model. The model involves three groups of persons: the land users, the soil scientists and the decision makers. For reasons of cost effectiveness, a GS system of the soil ecosystem will have to make use of existing networks. The Dutch Soil Quality Network (DSQN) offers an existing infrastructure for soil sampling for GS. Finally, the GS system may be extended to contain data from the Dutch Ecological Monitoring Network, earth observation systems as well as other data resources such as farmers questionnaires or reports form organisations involved in nature conservation. Ideally these data are compiled by a Central Reporting Office (CRO) and maintained in a Geographic Information System (GIS) based database.

[1]  J. Schiemann,et al.  Does the baseline concept provide appropriate tools for decision making? , 2006, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[2]  Jaap Bloem,et al.  Microbiological methods for assessing soil quality , 2005 .

[3]  F. Bigler,et al.  An approach for post‐market monitoring of potential environmental effects of Bt‐maize expressing Cry1Ab on natural enemies , 2009 .

[4]  P. Bakker,et al.  Influence of the production of antibacterial and antifungal proteins by transgenic plants on the saprophytic soil microflora , 1997 .

[5]  J. Schiemann,et al.  Farm questionnaires for monitoring genetically modified crops: a case study using GM maize. , 2008, Environmental biosafety research.

[6]  H. Bergmans,et al.  General surveillance for effects of GM crops on the soil ecosystem , 2011 .

[7]  F. Hervieu,et al.  Biological surveillance programme for the monitoring of crop pests and indicators in France , 2006, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[8]  Dick de Zwart,et al.  Diagnosis of Ecosystem Impairment in a Multiple-Stress Context—How to Formulate Effective River Basin Management Plans , 2009, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[9]  J. Boyd,et al.  What are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units , 2006 .

[10]  Naeem,et al.  Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis , 2005 .

[11]  D. Wardle,et al.  Ecological Linkages Between Aboveground and Belowground Biota , 2004, Science.

[12]  J. Schiemann,et al.  Concepts for General Surveillance of Genetically Modified (GM) Plants: The EFSA position , 2006, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[13]  L. Brussaard,et al.  Biological measurements in a nationwide soil monitoring network , 2009 .

[14]  J. Bloem,et al.  Pilotproject Bodembiologische Indicator voor Life Support Functies van de bodem , 2001 .

[15]  D. Wardle,et al.  Aboveground and belowground effects of single-tree removals in New Zealand rain forest. , 2008, Ecology.

[16]  Kerstin Schmidt,et al.  European-wide GMO-monitoring data management and analysis , 2007, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[17]  A. Benedetti,et al.  Defining soil quality , 2006 .

[18]  Olivier Sanvido,et al.  Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. , 2007, Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology.

[19]  G. Daily Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. , 1998 .

[20]  S. Scheu,et al.  Plant community impacts on the structure of earthworm communities depend on season and change with time. , 2009 .

[21]  W. Bowman,et al.  A temporal approach to linking aboveground and belowground ecology. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  F. Bigler,et al.  A framework for the design of general surveillance of genetically modified crops based on a concept for environmental post-market monitoring , 2006, Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.

[23]  H. Setälä Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe , 2009 .

[24]  Jörg Römbke,et al.  Ecological classification and assessment concepts in soil protection. , 2005, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[25]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[26]  B. Emmett,et al.  Countryside Survey: UK Results from 2007 , 2008 .

[27]  T. Harmon,et al.  Environmental sensor networks in ecological research. , 2009, The New phytologist.

[28]  F. Bigler,et al.  A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. , 2005, Environmental biosafety research.