A tale of two metrics: the EPA Risk Quotient Approach versus the delay in Population Growth Index for determination of pesticide risk to aquatic species

The risk that two closely related insecticides, spinetoram and spinosad, posed to three Cladoceran species, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia pulex, and D. magna was determined using two approaches, the USEPA Risk Quotient method and the Delay in Population Growth Index (DPGI). Results of the RQ method showed that spinetoram posed a risk to all three species, but spinosad posed a risk only to C. dubia. The DPGI analysis showed that exposure to spinetoram resulted in populations of all three species being delayed > 3 generation times. Exposure to the LC50 and the lower 95% CL resulted in delayed populations while exposure to the upper 95% CL concentration of spinetoram resulted in no recovery of any of the three species over the course of the modeling exercise (88 d). Exposure to the lower and upper 95% Cl and the LC50 of spinosad resulted in C. dubia populations being delayed > 3 generations. D. pulex populations were not negatively affected after exposure to spinosad. D. magna populations were delayed > 3 generations, but only after exposure to the upper 95% Cl of spinosad. These results illustrate that although the EPA risk quotient method indicated that spinetoram posed a risk to all three species and that spinosad only posed a risk to C. dubia, the DPGI showed that D. magna would be negatively affected by spinosad and none of the three species would recover after exposure to the upper 95% CL of spinetoram. Because the DPGI uses the 95% Cl as well as the LC50 in its calculation and produces a measure of population growth and recovery or lack thereof, it provides more detailed information in terms of the potential risk of pesticides to populations than the RQ method.

[1]  J. Stark,et al.  Sublethal Effects in Pest Management: A Surrogate Species Perspective on Fruit Fly Control , 2017, Insects.

[2]  Alan Boobis,et al.  Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance , 2017, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[3]  J. Stark,et al.  Developing demographic toxicity data: optimizing effort for predicting population outcomes , 2016, PeerJ.

[4]  T. Sparks,et al.  Natural product derived insecticides: discovery and development of spinetoram , 2016, Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology.

[5]  J. Stark,et al.  Incorporating variability in point estimates in risk assessment: Bridging the gap between LC50 and population endpoints , 2015, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[6]  Steve Norman,et al.  Comparing population recovery after insecticide exposure for four aquatic invertebrate species using models of different complexity , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[7]  J. Stark,et al.  Deconstructing the surrogate species concept: a life history approach to the protection of ecosystem services. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[8]  P. J. Van den Brink.  ASSESSING AQUATIC POPULATION AND COMMUNITY‐LEVEL RISKS OF PESTICIDES , 2013, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[9]  Matthias Liess,et al.  Interspecific competition delays recovery of Daphnia spp. populations from pesticide stress , 2012, Ecotoxicology.

[10]  J. Stark,et al.  Parasitoids and ecological risk assessment: Can toxicity data developed for one species be used to protect an entire guild? , 2011 .

[11]  Valery E. Forbes,et al.  Adding Value to Ecological Risk Assessment with Population Modeling , 2011 .

[12]  J. Stark,et al.  The Use of Surrogate Species in Risk Assessment: Using Life History Data to Safeguard Against False Negatives , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Integrating population modeling into ecological risk assessment , 2010, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[14]  V E Forbes,et al.  Population-level impacts of pesticide-induced chronic effects on individuals depend more on ecology than toxicology. , 2009, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[15]  Roman Ashauer,et al.  CREAM: a European project on mechanistic effect models for ecological risk assessment of chemicals , 2009, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[16]  J. Stark,et al.  Acute Toxicity and Hazard Assessment of Spinosad and R-11 to Three Cladoceran Species and Coho Salmon , 2009, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[17]  Sandrine Charles,et al.  Integrating the lethal and sublethal effects of toxic compounds into the population dynamics of Daphnia magna: A combination of the DEBtox and matrix population models , 2007 .

[18]  Lawrence W Barnthouse,et al.  Quantifying population recovery rates for ecological risk assessment , 2004, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[19]  Roger Vargas,et al.  How risky is risk assessment: the role that life history strategies play in susceptibility of species to stress. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  John E Banks,et al.  Population-level effects of pesticides and other toxicants on arthropods. , 2003, Annual review of entomology.

[21]  J. Stark,et al.  “Selective” Pesticides: Are They Less Hazardous to the Environment? , 2001 .

[22]  Uno Wennergren,et al.  MODELING LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES ON POPULATIONS: BEYOND JUST COUNTING DEAD ANIMALS , 2000 .

[23]  Paul S. Price,et al.  Defining the Interindividual (Intraspecies) Uncertainty Factor , 1999 .

[24]  R. Sibly.  EFFICIENT EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR STUDYING STRESS AND POPULATION DENSITY IN ANIMAL POPULATIONS , 1999 .

[25]  J. Stark,et al.  Ecotoxicology: life history data and population models , 2009 .

[26]  P. Calow,et al.  Population growth rate as a basis for ecological risk assessment of toxic chemicals , 2002 .

[27]  J. Stark,et al.  What is ecotoxicology? An ad‐hoc grab bag or an interdisciplinary science? , 1998 .