6. Speci fic Protection Goal Options for in-soil organisms in agricultural landscapes
6.2. SPG Options for in-soil organisms as service providing units
The proposed different options for Specific Protection Goals for in-soil organisms in agricultural landscape are derived by combining the knowledge summarised in the sections above regarding the determined key drivers with their pertinent ecologically entities (Service Providing Units or SPU according to EFSA Scientific Committee, 2016b) and the traits of the SPU in terms of their recovery and dispersal potential (see Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 above). These data are integrated to derive a magnitude of effects by intended PPP use that might be acceptable without compromising the delivery of the ecosystem services of interest.
In the trade-off between crop production and protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the Panel might propose a higher level of effects on diversity in-field than off-field. In doing this, the Panel acknowledge that in-field crop protection might be ‘rated’ higher in term of provisioning service than biodiversity and other ecosystem services. This is not the case for off-field SPG Options.
Therefore, the proposed SPG options for the in-field areas are given as limits of operation of the addressed service providing unit, i.e. the maximum tolerable magnitude of effects on the key drivers and their entities in order to be (still) able to deliver the identified ecosystem service. If lower magnitude of effects than the limits of operation is considered as pertinent for the in-field area by risk managers (e.g. negligible effects), then no consequences for the service provision are expected. If higher magnitude of effects are considered relevant, then consequences regarding the ecosystem service provision and the long-term persistence of the populations are to be expected. The consequences of choosing different SPG Options are explained in Section 6.3. For reason of simplicity, the proposed SPG Options are given as ‘Option: Below the limit of operation’, ‘Option: Limit of operation’ and ‘Option: Above limit of operation’ for the service providing units.
As discussed in Section5, species diversity plays a key role for the long-term performance of functional groups in strongly disturbed agricultural soils. When identifying the‘functional group’ as SPU for the maintenance of certain ecosystem services, it should be kept in mind that the definition of SPU solely at the level of functional groups might lead under unfavourable conditions to a loss of function performance. Species loss within a functional group will lead to the erosion of trait diversity and to a reduced resilience and stability under changing environmental conditions. In order to support the long-term performance of the functional role of in-soil organisms in several ecosystem services in agricultural soils, it is recommended to define the SPU as the abundance/biomass of the populations of species belonging to the different functional groups. For the off-field non-target areas, it is proposed that only negligible effects on the abundance/biomass of in-soil organisms’ populations can be tolerated.
In terms of this Opinion, the definition of possible acceptable magnitude of effects as percentage reduction compared to a ‘control’ applies to a defined context. For example, in an agricultural system supporting a high diversity of in-soil organisms, a given reduction (e.g. 50%) may still retain the function represented by the SPG. In contrast, in landscapes with very low in-soil diversity, the acceptability of effects might be at a far lower magnitude level, e.g. removing 50% of 2 species may be critical. This context dependency applies to all proposed SPG options for in-soil organisms.
For in-field as well as off-field areas, the tolerable magnitude of effects should take multiple PPP applications according to typical PPP ‘spray schedules’ into account. This will possibly implicate a lower level of tolerable effects for single PPP applications, especially in-field, if the intended use fits in an application scheme that includes several other PPPs with potential effects on in-soil organisms in the crop. Multiple applications of several PPPs in typical schedules should also be taken in consideration when addressing the recovery of in-soil organisms.
The proposed tolerable magnitudes of effects are related to the protection goals and not to the detectable limits of measurement endpoints. Although, the Panel acknowledges that the proposed tolerable magnitude of effects, from 10% to < 35%, might not be possible to detect for some endpoints under certain circumstances, it has been proven that with proper experimental design, effects within the proposed range can be detectable (see Section 9.7.2).
6.2.1. SPG Options for Earthworms
The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal is suggested to be small effects less than 35% up to months on the ecological
entity‘populations of different earthworm species’. Please refer to Section 4for the definition of effect size and temporal scales of effects. This magnitude of effect is deemed to allow for internal recovery of earthworm populations so that biodiversity levels and the provision of the ecosystem-services in agricultural field soils is assured in relevant time frames (please refer to Section 3.2). For earthworm populations, medium effects higher than 65% would not result in internal recovery in relevant time frames. Table10 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
6.2.2. SPG Options for Enchytraeids
The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal is suggested to be small effects less than 35% for months on the ecological entity‘populations of different enchytraeid species’ or medium effects less than 65% for weeks. These magnitudes of effects are deemed to allow for internal recovery of enchytraeids populations (see Section 3.2), so that biodiversity levels and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural field soils is assured in relevant time frames. Table 11 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
Table 10: Specific Protection Goal Options for Earthworms Earthworms
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale
In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Nutrient cycling Long-term persistence of
functional groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Pest control Long-term persistence of
functional groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Natural attenuation Minor importance
Soil structure Long-term persistence of functional groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Food web support Functional groups Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population Abundance/biomass Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
Table 11: Enchytraeids
Enchytraeids
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Nutrient cycling Long-term persistence
of functional
groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks
6.2.3. SPG Options for Microarthropods
The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal is suggested to be medium effects less than 65% for weeks on the ecological entity ‘populations of different microarthropod species’ or small effects less than 35% for months.
These magnitudes of effects are deemed to allow for internal recovery of microarthropod populations, so that biodiversity levels and the provision of ecosystem services in agriculturalfield soils is assured in relevant time frames (see Section 3.2). Table12 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
6.2.4. SPG Options for Macroarthropods (e.g. Isopods)
The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal are suggested to be medium effects less than 65% for weeks on the ecological entity ‘populations of different macroarthropod species’ or small effects less than 35% for months.
These magnitude of effects will allow for internal recovery and recolonisation by macroarthopod species (see Section 3.2), so that biodiversity levels and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural field soils is assured in relevant time frames. Table13 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and Table 12: Specific Protection Goal Options for Microarthropods
Microarthropods
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale
In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Nutrient cycling Long-term persistence of
functional groups? population Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks
Pest control Long-term persistence of
functional groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Natural attenuation Minor importance
Soil structure Long-term persistence of functional groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Food web support Functional groups Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population Abundance/biomass Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
Enchytraeids
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale
Pest control Minor importance
Natural attenuation Minor importance Soil structure Long-term persistence
of functional
groups? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Food web support Functional groups Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population Abundance/biomass Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section6.3).
6.2.5. SPG Options for terrestrial Gastropods (slugs and snails)
Small effects < 35% for months on the ecological entity population of different gastropod species are suggested as the maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal. For gastropod species, the choice of medium effects over period of weeks does not appear suitable to enable internal recovery in relevant time frames (see Section 3.2.1). Table14 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
Table 13: Specific Protection Goal Options for Macroarthropods Macroarthropods (e.g. Isopods)
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Nutrient cycling Long-term persistence
of functional groups
? population
Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks
Pest control Minor importance
Natural attenuation Minor importance
Soil structure Minor importance
Food web support Functional groups Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population Abundance/biomass Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
Table 14: Specific Protection Goal Options for terrestrial gastropods Terrestrial gastropods (slugs and snails)
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale
In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population Abundance Small effects up to months Nutrient cycling Long-term persistence of
functional groups? population
Abundance Small effects up to months
Pest control Minor importance
Natural attenuation Minor importance
Soil structure Long-term persistence of
functional groups⋄population
Abundance Small effects up to months Food web support Functional groups Abundance Small effects up to months Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population Abundance Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
6.2.6. SPG Options for Nematodes
The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal are suggested to be medium effects less than 65% for weeks or small effects less than 35% for months. Regarding the maintenance of biodiversity levels close to normal operating ranges for agriculturalfield soils in relevant time frames, the ecological entity to be assessed should be
‘community structure of nematodes’. In addition, the allocation of nematodes to trophic groups helps to condense information efficiently and to determine their contribution to ecosystem services. Table 15 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
6.2.7. SPG Options for Mycorrhiza, other fungi and protozoa
Fungi have a short generation time and good dispersal ability (see Section5), which allows them to recover quite fast. The maximum initial magnitude of effect that might be tolerated in-field without impairing the general protection goal is medium effects (35 < 65%) up to weeks on the ecological entity population or functional group of different fungi, including mycorrhizal fungi and protozoan species, depending on the ecosystem service. For the maintenance of biodiversity levels close to normal operating ranges for agricultural field soils in relevant time frames, the ecological entity to be assessed should be the ‘community’ and the attribute structure (phylogenetic or functional). The proposed magnitude of effect is deemed to allow for internal recovery (see Section 3.2) so that biodiversity levels and the provision of the ecosystem service genetic resource in agricultural field soils is assured in relevant time frames. Table 16 gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
Table 15: Specific Protection Goal Options for Nematodes Nematodes
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Population/community Abundance/community structure
Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Nutrient cycling Functional group Abundance Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Pest control Functional group Abundance Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Natural attenuation Minor importance
Soil structure Minor importance
Food web support Functional group Abundance Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Offfield
Biodiversity and all ecosystem services
Population/community Abundance/community structure
Negligible effects/temporal scale not relevant
6.2.8. SPG Options for Soil Bacteria and Archaea
Soil bacterial and archaean communities may recover from disturbance quite fast, mainly because their generation time is short, their rates of passive dispersal and recolonisation are comparatively high (see Section 3.2), and because of functional redundancy. For services connected with genetic resources and biodiversity, it is suggested that the ecological entity should be microbial community and the attribute diversity (phylogenetic or functional). For other ES, the proposed ecological entity to be protected is functional group. It is suggested that the maximum magnitudes of effect that might be tolerated in-field are large effects up to days, medium effects up to weeks or small effects up to months. Table17gives for the in-field area the limits of operation of the service providing unit, so that the respective services can (still) be delivered and the long-term persistence of the populations is assured. Lower magnitude of effects might be chosen also for the in-field area (e.g. negligible effects), resulting in no expected effects on the service provision. If higher magnitude of effects is chosen, then consequences for the service provision and for the service providing unit are expected (see for this Section 6.3).
Table 16: Specific Protection Goal Options for Mycorrhiza, other fungi and protozoa Mycorrhiza, other fungi and protozoa
Community Structure Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Nutrient cycling Functional group Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Pest control Functional group Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Natural attenuation Functional group Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Soil structure Functional group Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks Food web support Functional group Abundance/biomass Small effects up to months
Medium effects up to weeks
Table 17: Specific Protection Goal Options for Soil Bacteria and Archaea Soil Bacteria and Archaea
Ecological entity Attribute Magnitude/temporal scale In-field
Biodiversity, genetic resources, cultural services
Microbial community Diversity Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Large effects up to days
Nutrient cycling Functional group Abundance/
biomass/activity
Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Large effects up to days
Pest control Functional group Abundance/
biomass/activity
Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks large effects up to days
Natural attenuation Functional group Abundance/
biomass/activity
Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Large effects up to days
Soil structure Minor importance Abundance/
biomass/activity
Small effects up to months Medium effects up to weeks Large effects up to days