Proposed schemes on more integrative ecological risk assessment of pesticides

Integration in ecological risk assessment (ERA), the act of unifying separate concepts or measures into a functioning or cohesive assessment approach, has gained ground in recent years, especially in the field of chemical risk evaluation. Many ERA articles in the open literature contain the term “integration,” “integrated,” or “integrative” to describe an ERA process, approach, line of evidence, method, technique, tool, addition, combination, or other advancements; the term, of course, sits within the title (and mission) of this journal. Several articles in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) over the last decade have focused on or referred to the need for greater integration in ERA, particularly with regard to pesticide ERA. The extent of (and approach to) integrative pesticide ERA reported in IEAM will be explored. It should be noted that it has been at least 15 years since it was acknowledged that ecological risk assessments are dynamic processes that require continuous revision, in line with scientific developments (Barnthouse, 2008). It has been at least two decades since it was acknowledged that chemical ERA evolved into stress‐ecology‐ based assessments (note that Van Straalen, 2003 termed as “stress‐ecology” the merge of ecotoxicology with ecology). Considering the above, one could argue that the concept of “integration” in ecological risk assessments is not new. In fact, the term has been applied for decades in ERA schemes, within traditional risk assessment schemes, or even in approaches that are now obsolete. For instance, by calculating hazard quotients or exposure–toxicity ratios, we are simply integrating exposure with toxicity data in our efforts to characterize potential risks from a stressor. By combining and weighting different types of data, and, increasingly, including a consideration of various types and sources of uncertainty, we are actually integrating several lines of evidence to draw a more robust conclusion about risk (but see a recent advance by Arnot et al., 2022 on weighting evidence integrated from multiple sources to assess bioaccumulation for various trophic levels and the BAT tool and Redman et al., 2021 on an integrated weight of evidence [WoE] framework for assessing persistence). As such, “integration” is a term and a tool for the risk assessor, the researcher, and the policymaker that is continuously evolving together with ERA. It is thus supported by and interlinked with the advances within ERA‐related scientific fields and disciplines of expertise. It is the elements of integration in ERA that have evolved over time—what is novel are the current “integration” modes that are proposed for enhancing or completing an ERA. This is also true for the ERA of pesticides and the scientific advice or findings that are turning it into a more integrative process. An example of such evolution was given by Burkhard et al. (2011), who proposed a holistic approach to weighting field and laboratory bioaccumulation and biomagnification evidence (WoE) by integrating thermodynamics (fugacity ratio approach) into ERA to evaluate and interpret biomagnification potential across many species and food webs. Other interesting examples of combining more relevant information or different data types, metrics (such as surrogate endpoints), or approaches to ERA are given by Bennett and Etterson (2013) as well as by Etterson and Bennett (2013), who propose the use of models to estimate the adverse effects of pesticide application on the annual reproductive