The minimum detectable difference (MDD) and the interpretation of treatment-related effects of pesticides in experimental ecosystems

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 1160-1174

  Brock, T C M ^a   Hammers Wirtz, M ^b   Hommen, U ^c   Preuss, T G ^d,e   Ratte, H T ^d   Roessink, I ^a   Strauss, T ^b   Van den Brink, P J ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Research Institute for Ecosystem Analysis and Assessment (gaiac)   (Germany)

^c FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND APPLIED ECOLOGY IME   (Germany)

^d RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Environmental effect assessment; Experimental design; Mesocosms; Microcosms; Plant protection product; Population responses; Statistical power

Indexed keywords

PESTICIDE; WATER POLLUTANT;

ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; WATER POLLUTANT;

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; PESTICIDES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84939874172     PISSN: 09441344     EISSN: 16147499     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3398-2     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baveco JM, Norman S, Roessink I, Galic N, Van den Brink PJ (2014) Comparing population recovery after insecticide exposure for four aquatic invertebrate species using models of different complexity. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1517–1528
2. Brock TCM, Arts GHP, Maltby L, Van den Brink PJ (2006) Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals and common aims in European Union legislation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2:e20–e46
3. Brock TCM, Belgers JDM, Roessink I, Cuppen JGM, Maund SJ (2010) Macroinvertebrate responses to insecticide application between sprayed and adjacent non-sprayed ditch sections of different sizes. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1994–2008
4. Brock TCM, Arts GHP, Ten Hulscher TEM, De Jong FMW, Luttik R, Roex EWM, Smit CE, Van Vliet PJM (2011) Aquatic effect assessment for plant protection products. Dutch proposal that addresses the requirements of the Plant Protection Products Regulation and the Water Framework Directive. Wageningen, Alterra Report 2235, 140pp
5. Campbell PJ, Arnold DJS, Brock TCM, Grandy NJ, Heger W, Heimbach F, Maund SJ, Streloke M (1999) HARAP guidance document: higher-tier aquatic risk assessment for pesticides. SETAC-Europe, Brussels
6. Caquet T, Lagadic L, Sheffield SR (2000) Mesocosms in ecotoxicology. 1. Outdoor aquatic systems. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 165:1–38
7. Caquet T, Hanson M, Roucaute M, Graham D, Lagadic L (2007) Influence of isolation on the recovery of pond mesocosms from the application of an insecticide. II Benthic macroinvertebrate responses. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1280–1290
8. De Jong FMW, Mensink BJWG, Smit CE, Montforts MHMM (2005) Evaluation of ecotoxicological field studies for authorization of plant protection products in Europe. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 11:1157–1176
9. De Jong FMW, Brock TCM, Foekema EM, Leeuwangh P (2008) Guidance for summarizing and evaluating aquatic micro- and mesocosm studies. RIVM Report 601506009/2008. RIVM, Bilthoven
10. De Lange HJ, Sala S, Vighi M, Faber JH (2010) Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment—a review and perspectives. Sci Total Environ 408:3871–3879
11. Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50:1096–1121
12. Dunnett CW (1964) New tables for multiple comparisons with a control. Biometrics 20:482–491
13. EC [European Commission] (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309/1, 24.11.2009, pp. 1–50
14. EC [European Commission] (2011) Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards, Guidance Document No: 27 under the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Technical Report 2011–055
15. EFSA [European Food Safety Authority] (2013) Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). Parma, Italy. EFSA J 11(7):3290. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290, 268 pp
16. Environment Canada (2005) Guidance Document on Statistical Methods. EPS l/RM/46. Ottawa, ON, Canada
17. Gabsi F, Hammers-Wirtz M, Grimm V, Schäffer A, Preuss TG (2014) Coupling different mechanistic effect models for capturing individual- and population-level effects of chemicals: lessons from a case where standard risk assessment failed. Ecol Model 280:18–29
18. Galic N, Hommen U, Baveco JM, Van den Brink PJ (2010) Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals II: review of models and their potential to address environmental protection aims. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:338–360
19. Giddings JM, Brock TCM, Heger W, Heimbach F, Maund SJ, Norman S, Ratte H-T, Schäfers C, Streloke M (eds) (2002) Community-level aquatic system studies-interpretation criteria. (CLASSIC) Pensacola (FL): SETAC 44 p
20. Hanson ML, Sanderson H, Solomon KR (2003) Variation, replication, and power analysis of Myriophyllum ssp. mictocosm toxicity data. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1318–1329
21. Jaki T, Hothorn LA (2013) Statistical evaluation of toxicological assays: Dunnett or Williams test—take both. Arch Toxicol 87:1901–1910
22. Kattwinkel M, Römbke J and Liess M (2012) Ecological recovery of populations of vulnerable species driving the risk assessment of pesticides. EFSA Supporting Publications 2012:EN-338. [98 pp.]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/338e.pdf
23. Kraufvelin P (1998) Model ecosystem replicability challenged by the “soft” reality of a hard bottom mesocosm. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 222:247–267
24. Nienstedt KM, Brock TCM, Van Wensem J, Montforts M, Hart A, Aagaard A, Alix A, Boesten J, Bopp SK, Brown C, Capri E, Forbes F, Köpp H, Liess M, Luttik R, Maltby L, Sousa JP, Streissl F, Hardy AR (2012) Developing protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides using an ecosystem services approach. Sci Total Environ 415:31–38
25. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2006a) Guidance Document on Simulated Freshwater Lentic Field tests (outdoor microcosms and mesocosms). Series on Testing and Assessment, No 53, ENV/JM/MONO(2006)17, OECD Environment Directorate, Paris, 37 pp
26. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2006b) Current approaches in the statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data: a guidance to application. OECD series on testing and assessment Number 54, OECD Paris ENV/JM/MONO(2006)18
27. Preuss TG, Hammers-Wittz M, Hommen U, Rubach MN, Ratte HT (2009) Development and validation of an individual based Dapnia magna population model: the influence of crowding on population dynamics. Ecol Model 220:310–329
28. Roessink I, Arts GHP, Belgers JDM, Bransen F, Maund SJ, Brock TCM (2005) Effects of lambda-cyhalothrin in two ditch microcosm systems of different trophic status. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:1684–1696
29. Rubach MN, Baird DJ, Boerwinkel MC, Maund SJ, Roessink I, Van den Brink PJ (2012) Species traits as predictors for intrinsic sensitivity of aquatic invertebrates to the insecticide chlorpyrifos. Ecotoxicology 21:2088–2101
30. Sachs L, Hedderich J (2009) Angewandte Statistik Methodensammlung mit R, 13th edn. Springer Dordrecht, Heidelberg, 813 pp
31. Sanderson H (2002) Pesticide studies: replicability of micro/mesocosms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9:429–435
32. Sanderson H, Laird B, Brain R, Wilson CJ, Solomon KR (2009) Detectability of fifteen aquatic micro/mesocosms. Ecotoxicology 18:838–845
33. Shaw JL, Maund SJ, Hill IR (1995) Fathead minnow reproduction in outdoor microcosms: a comparison to bluegill sunfish reproduction in large mesocosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1753–1762
34. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. WH Freeman and Company, New York, 887 pp
35. Van den Brink PJ (2006) Letter to the Editor: response to recent criticism on aquatic semifield experiments: opportunities for new developments in ecological risk assessment of pesticides. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2:202–203
36. Van den Brink PJ, Hattink J, Bransen F, Van Donk E, Brock TCM (2000) Impact of the fungicide carbenda-zim in freshwater microcosms. II. Zooplankton, primary producers and final conclusions. Aquat Toxicol 48:251–264
37. Van der Hoeven N (2008) Calculation of the minimum significant difference at the NOEC using a non-parametric test. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 70:61–66
38. Williams DA (1971) A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 27:103–117
39. Williams DA (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with a zero dose control. Biometrics 28:519–531