TEXTE 54 /2017 Comparison of dung and soil fauna from pastures treated with and without ivermectin as an example of the effects of a veterinary pharmaceutical Final Report TEXTE 54/2017 Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3710 63 412 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002155/E Comparison of dung and soil fauna from pastures treated with and without ivermectin as an example of the effects of a veterinary pharmaceutical by Dr. Jörg Römbke (Co-ordination), Dipl.-Ing. Adam Scheffczyk ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, Flörsheim, Germany Prof. Jean-Pierre Lumaret, Thomas Tixier University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France Dr. Wolf Blanckenhorn Zoologisches Museum, University of Zurich-Irchel, Zurich, Switzerland Dr. Joost Lahr Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands Dr. Kevin Floate Lethbridge Research Center, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4P4, Canada On behalf of the German Environment Agency Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Study performed by: ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH Böttgerstraße 2 – 14 65439 Flörsheim, Germany University of Montpellier 163 rue Auguste Broussonnet 34090 Montpellier, France Zoologisches Museum, University of Zurich-Irchel, KarlSchmidt-Straße 4 80006 Zurich, Switzerland Alterra Droevendaalsesteeg 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands Lethbridge Research Center 5403 1 Ave S Lethbridge, AB T1J 4P4, Canada Study completed in: December 2013 Edited by: Section IV 2.2 Pharmaceuticals, Washing and Cleaning Agents Dr. Nicole Adler Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, June 2017 The project underlying this report was financed by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3710 63 412. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). Comparison of dung and soil fauna from pastures treated with and without ivermectin as an example of the effects of a veterinary pharmaceutical Kurzbeschreibung Die Anwendung von Anthelmintika (z.B. Ivermectin) bei Nutztieren kann Dungorganismen beeinträch- tigen und in einigen Fällen auch den Dungabbau hemmen. Während der Registrierung müssen Antipa- rasitika in “higher-tier”-Studien untersucht werden, sofern in Labor-Einzelarttests negative Effekte auf Dungorganismen beobachtet wurden. Da es bisher für solche komplexeren Studien keine Richtlinien wurde ein internationales Projekt durchgeführt, um (1) die Belastbarkeit von Freilandstudien, die von 4 Instituten in verschiedenen Regionen mit unterschiedlichen Dung- und Bodenorganismengemein- schaften sowie Umweltbedingungen durchgeführt wurden, zu untersuchen und um (2) die Auswirkun- gen dieser Unterschiede auf die Interpretation der Testergebnisse zu studieren. Die Versuche liefen in Lethbridge (Kanada), Montpellier (Frankreich), Zurich (Schweiz) und Wageningen (Holland). Als Testsubstanz wurde Ivermectin eingesetzt. Es zeigte sich, dass es, wie zu erwarten, große Unter- schiede in der Zusammensetzung wichtiger Gruppen der Dunginsekten (Familienebene) an den 4 Standorten gab. Die Ergebnisse belegen zudem, dass Ivermectin negative Auswirkungen auf mehrere Gruppen der Dungfliegen bzw. Dungkäfer an allen Standorten hatte. Allerdings konnte kein Einfluss der Ivermektinbehandlung auf die Abbaurate des Rinder-dungs in gemäßigten Breiten festgestellt werden. Zudem wurden an einem Standort (Wageningen) negative Auswirkungen auf die unter den Dunghaufen lebende Bodenfauna (Collembolen, nicht aber Regenwürmer) gefunden. Das Studiende- sign erwies sich als gut geeignet für die Untersuchung der Wirkungen von Antiparasitika auf Dungin- sekten und die Bodenfauna, wie es für eine “higher-tier”-Risikobeurteilung erforderlich ist. Extreme Wetterereignisse während einer solchen Studie können aber die Abundanz einiger Dunginsektengrup- pen beeinflussen. Diese Ergebnisse wurden in Hinsicht auf die Eignung von Risikominderungsmaß- nahmen diskutiert. Abstract The application of anthelmintics (e.g. ivermectin) to domestic animals can affect populations of dung- dwelling organisms and in some cases retard dung degradation. During their registration process, such parasiticides need to be tested at higher tier levels when adverse effects on dung organisms are ob- served in single species toxicity tests. Since no guidance on higher-tier testing was available, an inter- national project was set up in order (1) to assess the robustness of field tests when conducted by 4 re- search groups at different geographic sites, varying in dung and soil faunas, in environmental condi- tions, and (2) to study the effects of these variable conditions on the interpretation of test results. The experiments were conducted in Lethbridge (Canada), Montpellier (France), Zurich (Switzerland), and Wageningen (The Netherlands). Ivermectin was used as test compound. The study demonstrated that there are considerable differences in the composition of the principal groups of dung insect fauna (family level) between different experimental sites in the study, as could be expected according to bio- geography. The results indicate that ivermectin does negatively affect various groups of dung flies and also dung beetles at all study sites. However, ivermectin treatments do not seem to have an effect on the degradation rate of dung in temperate climate regions. Effects on soil fauna (Collembola, not earth- worms) living below dung pats did occur only in Wageningen. The study design is suitable to evaluate the effects of parasiticides on dung insects and soil fauna under field conditions such as required in higher-tier testing for risk assessment. Extreme weather conditions during the experiments, however, may interfere with the abundance of certain important groups of dung insects. The results are dis- cussed in the context of measures mitigating the risk of ivermectin. 4 Comparison of dung and soil fauna from pastures treated with and without ivermectin as an example of the effects of a veterinary pharmaceutical Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................. 10 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 15 List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Zusammenfassung .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 41 1.1 Aims of the project ......................................................................................................................... 41 1.2 Legal background including risk assessment and protection goals ............................................... 41 1.3 Structure of the report ................................................................................................................... 42 2 WP I: Literature review and database .................................................................................................. 44 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 44 2.2 Dung organisms: ............................................................................................................................. 44 2.3 Soil organisms................................................................................................................................. 47 3 WP I: Definition of dung organism communities .................................................................................. 53 4 WP I: Characterization of exposed habitats of European Communities and their dung organisms - Differentiated protection target and protected property descriptions on zonings within relevant regions of Europe ........................................................................................................ 57 4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 57 4.2 Biogeography of selected dung organism groups and species ...................................................... 57 4.3 Concepts for the ecological zonation of Europe ............................................................................ 66 4.4 Distribution of dung-beetles in North America .............................................................................. 68 5 WP I: Description of different routes of exposure of parasiticides including new developments in VMP applications ...................................................................................................... 72 5.1 Consumption and application of VMPs (exposure sources) .......................................................... 72 5.2 Farm animals to be treated