Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2010 Jun 7;8(6):1625. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1625

Scientific Opinion on the importance of the soil litter layer in agricultural areas

EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR)
PMCID: PMC13085162  PMID: 42006964

Abstract

In the soil litter layer specific exposure to plant protection products takes place, including direct exposure, uptake via food, and food web transfer (biomagnification). Furthermore it is an important energy resource in soil and thus of vital importance for maintaining organism communities and their large biodiversity. Not protecting the natural processes and organisms in litter will fail the objectives of the EU regarding biodiversity, soil erosion, organic matter decline, etc. As a consequence, the litter layer should be considered in the environmental risk assessment of plant protection products. The opinion gives an overview of the composition of litter in an agricultural context, on the underlying processes which play a role in the decomposition of litter and an outline of how to consider the litter layer in the environmental risk assessment of plant protection products. Furthermore the Panel addresses the need of considering particular issues for this purpose.

Keywords: litter layer, plant protection products, soil organisms, environmental risk assessment, exposure

EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) ; Scientific Opinion on the importance of the soil litter layer in agricultural areas on the importance of the soil litter layer in agricultural areas. EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1625. [21 pp.]. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1625

Panel members: Jos Boesten, Claudia Bolognesi, Theo Brock, Ettore Capri, Anthony Hardy, Andrew Hart, Karen Hirsch‐Ernst, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Robert Luttik, Angelo Moretto, Bernadette Ossendorp, Annette Petersen, Yolanda Pico, Andreas Schäffer, Paulo Sousa, Walter Steurbaut, Anita Stromberg, Maria Tasheva, Ton Van der Linden, Christiane Vleminckx

Correspondence: ppr@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Ecoregions for the preparation of this opinion: Ettore Capri, Juliane Filser, Robert Luttik, Jörg Römbke, Andreas Schäffer, and Paulo Sousa as well as EFSA's staff member Karin Nienstedt for the support provided to this EFSA scientific output.

Adoption date: 20 May 2010

Published date: 7 June 2010

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2010‐00823

On request from: European Food Safety Authority

References

  1. Ad‐Hoc‐Arbeitsgruppe Boden: Wolf Eckelmann. Red.:; Sponagel H, Grottenthaler W, et al, 2005. Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung. 5. verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage. Herausgegeben von der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe in Zusammenarbeit mit den Staatlichen Geologischen Diensten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Hannover, 438 pp, ISBN 978‐3‐510‐95920‐4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alletto L, Coquet Y, Benoit P, Heddadj D and Barriuso E, 2010. Tillage management effects on pesticide fate in soils: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30 (2), 367 – 400. [Google Scholar]
  3. BBCH , 1994. Compendium of growth stage keys for mono‐ and dicotyledonous plants ‐ extended BBCH scale. BBA, BSA, IGZ, IVA, AgrEvo, BASF, Baer & Ciba‐Geigy AG, Switzerland.
  4. Berg B, Bottner P, Box E, Breymeyer A, Ca de Anta R, Couteaux M, Escudero A, Gallardo A, Kratz W, Madeira M, Mälkönen E, McClaugherty C, Meentemeyer V, Muñoz F, Piussi P, Remacle J and Virzo de Santo A, 1993. Litter mass loss rates in pine forests of Europe and Eastern United States: some relationships with climate and litter quality. Biogeochemistry, 20, 127–159. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blume H‐P, and Beyer L, 1996. The definition of humus forms from soils under cultivation. I. Diagnostic properties. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 80, 183–185. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bottner P, Couteaux MM, Anderson JM, Berg B, Billes G, Bolger T, Casabianca H, Romanya J and Rovira P, 2000. Decomposition of 13C‐labelled plant material in a European 65–40 degrees latitudinal transect of coniferous forest soils: simulation of climate change by translocation of soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32(4), 527 ‐ 543. [Google Scholar]
  7. Briones MJI and Bol R, 2002. Earthworm isotopic values under different cropping treatments. The 7th International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology, 1st ‐ 6th September 2002, Cardiff (Wales), Book of Abstracts, 115 ‐ 116.
  8. Cadisch G and Giller KE, 1997. Driven by Nature, Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 409 pp. [Google Scholar]
  9. Curry JP, Byrne D and Boyle KE, 1995. The earthworm population of a winter cereal field and its effects on soil and nitrogen turnover. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 19, 166–172. [Google Scholar]
  10. Curry JP, 1998. Factors affecting earthworm abundance in soils. In: Earthworm ecology, Edwards C.A. (ed), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL USA, 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  11. Daniel O, 1992. Population dynamics of Lumbricus terrestris L. (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) in a meadow. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24(12), 1425 ‐ 1432. [Google Scholar]
  12. De Wilde T, Mertens J, Simunek J, Sniegowski K, Ryckeboer J, Jaeken P, Springael D and Spanoghe P, 2009a. Characterizing pesticide sorption and degradation in micro scale biopurification systems using column displacement experiments. Environmental Pollution, 157, 463–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. De Wilde T, Spanoghe P, Sniegowski K, Ryckeboer J, Jaeken P and Springael D, 2009b. Characterizing pesticide sorption and degradation in macro scale biopurification systems using column displacement experiments. Environmental Pollution, 157, 1373–1381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dinter A, Coulson M, Heimbach F, Keppler J, Krieg W and Kölzer U, 2008. Technical experiences made with the litter bag test as required for the risk assessment of plant protection products in soil. Journal of Soils and Sediments 8: 333–339. [Google Scholar]
  15. Doherty J, 2000. PEST – model‐independent parameter estimation. Watermark Computing, Corinda, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  16. Doublet J, Mamy L and Barriuso E, 2009. Delayed degradation in soil of foliar herbicides glyphosate and sulcotrione previously absorbed by plants: consequences on herbicide fate and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 77(4), 582 – 589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. EC (European Commission) , 2002. Guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology under Council Directive 91/414/EEC (SANCO/10329/2002) rev.2 final, 17.10.2002, 1–39.
  18. EC (European Commission) , 2006. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. COM/2006/0232 final – COD 2006/0086.
  19. Edwards CA and Bohlen P, 1996. Biology and ecology of earthworms, Chapmann & Hall, 426 pp. [Google Scholar]
  20. Edwards WM and Shipitalo MJ, 1998. Consequences of earthworms in agricultural soils: Aggregation and porosity. In: Earthworm ecology, Edwards, C.A. (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL USA, 147–161. [Google Scholar]
  21. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant protection products and their residues (PPR) related to the revision of Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market ‐ Ecotoxicological studies. The EFSA Journal, 461, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  22. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2009. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) on the usefulness of total concentrations and pore water concentrations as metrics for the assessment of ecotoxicological effects in soil. The EFSA Journal, 922, 1–90. [Google Scholar]
  23. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2009. Scientific Report of EFSA: Report on the PPR Stakeholder Workshop Improved Realism in Soil Risk Assessment (IRIS) – How will pesticide risk assessment in soil be tackled tomorrow? The EFSA Journal 338, 1–32 [Google Scholar]
  24. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2010. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), on outline proposals for assessment of exposure of organisms to substances in soil. The EFSA Journal, 8(1), 1442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. 1999. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic‐art/552611/19380/The‐soil‐profile‐showing‐the‐major‐layers‐from‐the‐O
  26. Ganapathy C, 1996. Environmental fate of hexazinone. Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management Branch. Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA: 95814–5624. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gisi U, Schenker R, Schulin R, Stadelmann FX and Sticher H, 1990. Bodenökologie. Thieme, Stuttgart. 304 pp. [Google Scholar]
  28. Goss KU and Madliger M, 2007. Estimation of water transport based on in situ measurements of relative humidity and temperature in a dry Tanzanian soil. Water Resources Research 43(5), W05433, 10 pp. [Google Scholar]
  29. Heal OW, Anderson JM and Swift MJ, 1997. Plant litter quality and decomposition: An historical overview. In: Cadisch G and Giller KE, 1997. Driven by Nature. Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  30. ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) , 1999. ISO 11267. Inhibition of reproduction of Collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil pollutants. Geneve, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  31. ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) , 2008. ISO 17512‐1. Soil Quality ‐ Avoidance test for evaluating the quality of soils and effects of chemicals on behaviour – Part 1: Test with earthworms (Eisenia fetida/andrei). Geneve, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ke X, Winter K and Filser J, 2005. Effects of soil mesofauna and farming management on decomposition of clover litter: a microcosm experiment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 731–738. [Google Scholar]
  33. Knacker T, Förster B, Römbke J and Frampton G, 2003. Assessing the effects of plant protection products on organic matter breakdown in arable fields. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35: 1269–1287. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lavelle P and Spain AV, 2001. Soil Ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 654 pp. [Google Scholar]
  35. Linden AMA van der, Veen JA van, and Frissel MJ, 1987. Modelling soil organic matter level after long‐term applications of crop residues, and farmyard and green manures. Plant and Soil 101: 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  36. Merli A and Capri E, 2009. Pesticide risk assessment in Vineyards: case studies in Veneto and Apulia regions. La Goliardica edizioni, 123 pp.
  37. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) , 1984. Guideline for testing of chemicals. No. 207. Earthworm acute toxicity tests. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  38. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) , 2000. Guideline for the testing of chemicals. No. 216. Soil Microorganisms, Carbon Transformation Test. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  39. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) , 2000. Guideline for the testing of chemicals. No. 217. Soil Microorganisms, Nitrogen Transformation Test. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  40. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) , 2004. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 222. Earthworm Reproduction Test. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  41. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐Operation and Development) , 2004. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 220. Enchytraeidae Reproduction Test. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  42. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) , 2006. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 56. Guidance document on the breakdown of organic matter in litterbags. OECD, Paris. [Google Scholar]
  43. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) , 2008. Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 226. Predatory mite (Hypoaspis (Geolaelaps) aculeifer) reproduction test in soil. Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  44. Palm CA and Rowland AP, 1997. A minimum dataset for characterization of plant quality for decomposition. In: Cadisch G and Giller KE, 1997. Driven by Nature. Plant Litter Quality and Decomposition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 379–392. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ponge JF, 2003. Humus forms in terrestrial ecosystems: a framework to biodiversity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35, 935–945. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ribeiro S, Sousa JP, Nogueira AJA and Soares AMVM, 2001. Effect of Endosulfan and Parathion on Energy Reserves and Physiological Parameters of the Terrestrial Isopod Porcellio dilatatus. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 49, 131–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Römbke J, Heimbach F, Hoy S, Kula C, Scott‐Fordsmand J, Sousa P, Stephenson G and Weeks J (Eds), 2003. EPFES: Effects of Plant Protection Products on Functional Endpoints in Soil (EPFES Lisboa 2002). SETAC, Pensacola, USA, 92 pp. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schaeffer A, De Jong F, Hoy S, Roembke J, Heimbach F, Sousa JP, Ross‐Nickoll M and van den Brink P, 2010. Guidance from the SETAC Europe Workshop: Semi‐field Methods for the Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides in Soil (PERAS). SETAC, Pensacola, USA: (in press). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Swift MJ, Heal OW and Anderson JM, 1979. Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Studies in Ecology 5, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 372 pp. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tutua SS, Goh KM and Daly MJ, 2002. Decomposition and nitrogen release of understorey plant residues in biological and integrated apple orchards under field conditions in New Zealand. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35(4), 277 ‐ 287. [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Camp L, Bujarrabal B, Gentile AR, Jones RJA, Montanarella L, Olazabal C and Selvaradjou SK, 2004. Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Luxembourg EUR 21319 EN/3, OOP EC 872 pp.
  52. Walters J, 1997. Environmental Fate of 2,4‐Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid. Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA: 95814–3510. [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES