Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0005-0059
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-03-31T05:00Z

1
Generic
Species
2
Generic
vs
Focal
Species
SAP
suggested:

°
Using
generic
species
could
be
simpler
and
may
be
less
resource­
intensive
than
using
focal
species,

°
Would
not
require
developing
a
large
number
of
actual
scenarios,
but
°
An
approach
based
on
actual(
focal)
species
has
the
advantage
of
risk
estimates
that
are
directly
relevant
to
a
species
know
to
occur
in
the
treatment
area
3
Generic
vs
Focal
Species
The
SAP,
however,
indicated
either
approach
would
have
similar
high
uncertainty
due
to
variable
relationship
between
exposure
factors
for
generic
species
and
actual(
focal)
species.
4
Generic
vs
Focal
Species
Uncertainty
associated
with
some
of
the
parameters
used
to
define
species,
whether
generic
species
or
focal
is
high
Major
parameters
that
define
species
in
relation
to
exposure
to
pesticides
include:

1.
Body
weight
2.
Food
habits
3.
Proportion
of
food
and
water
from
treated
field
5
Generic
vs
Focal
Species
°
Given
the
uncertainties
associated
with
exposure
estimates
based
on
available
avian
use
information
of
agricultural
crop
areas,
developing
a
library
of
exposure
scenarios
for
specific
species
would
provide
limited
additional
understanding
of
risk.

°
Using
focal
species
may
also
imply
a
degree
of
certainty
in
results
that
are
unfounded.
6
Generic
vs
Focal
Species
Therefore,
given:

1.
The
uncertainty
associated
with
estimating
exposure
of
specific
species
2.
The
potential
implied
confident
in
risk
estimates
that
may
be
unfounded
3.
The
lower
potential
resources
required
to
develop
scenarios
for
the
array
of
crops
where
pesticides
are
used,
and
4.
The
limited
added
understanding
of
risk
gained
from
using
focal
species,

An
approach
was
developed
to
define
generic
species.
However,
the
Model
retains
the
flexibility
to
address
specific
species
when
Appropriate.
7
Generic
Species
Approach
°
The
approach
proposed
to
identify
generic
species
follows
the
guild
method
outlined
by
Best
et
al.(
1990).

°
Species
were
classified
on
the
basis
of:

°
food
type
°
food
substrate
°
nest
substrate
°
This
guild
approach
allows
a
way
to
evaluate
the
degree
to
which
life
history
attributes
explain
differences
in
habitat
use.
8
Generic
Species
Approach
Best
et
al.
(
1990)
categorized
53
avian
species
found
in
and
around
corn
fields
in
Iowa
and
Illinois.

°
18
species
were
observed
in
edge
habitat
and
never
in
cornfields
°
8
species
were
observed
almost
always
in
the
edge
habitat
and
only
rarely
in
cornfields
°
18
species
visited
cornfields
occasionally
°
7
species
used
corn
fields
regularly
°
2
species
were
considered
field
residents
9
Generic
Species
Approach
°
Resident
 
ground
feeders,
ground
nesters,

FOF>
82%

°
Regular
 
mostly
ground
feeders,
above
ground
nesters1,
FOF>
18%

°
Occasional
 
mostly
ground
feeders,
above
ground
nester,
FOF>
11%

°
Rare
 
some
ground
feeders,
nesters,
mostly
above
ground
nesters
FOF<
6%

°
Never
­
mostly
above
ground
feeders
and
nesters,
FOF=
0
1.
Above
ground
includes:
shrubs,
vines,
trees,
and/
or
snags.
10
Generic
Species
Approach
Food
substrate
and
food
type
were
found
to
be
the
major
factors
to
account
for
frequency
of
corn
field
use
by
birds
suggesting:

°
Most
birds
species
visit
corn
fields
to
feed
°
Birds
that
are
adapted
to
feed
primarily
on
the
ground
or
in
low
herbaceous
vegetation
,
corn
fields
can
provide
a
food
source
°
Potentially
resulting
in
a
higher
likelihood
of
exposure
to
pesticides
11
Generic
Species
Approach
Food
Type
°
Species
using
corn
fields
were
found
to
be
mostly
omnivores
or
insectivores,
but
predominately
omnivores
°
Granivores
were
not
represented
by
enough
species
to
include
in
the
analysis,
however,
a
few
were
observed
in
corn
fields
°
Herbivores
were
not
reported
to
be
observed
using
corn
fields
12
Generic
Species
Approach
Following
Best
et
al.(
1990)
guild
classification
of
avian
species
use
of
corn
fields,
the
following
attributes
were
used
to
define
Generic
Species
for
initial
testing
of
the
revised
model:

°
Food
type
°
Body
weights
°
Frequency
on
field
°
On
field
"
Persistence
Factor"
13
Generic
Species
Approach
For
initial
testing,
values
assigned
to
these
parameters
were
weighted
towards
defining
the
more
vulnerable
species
within
a
food
type:

°
Generic
species
representing
guilds
with
highest
use
of
corn
fields
(
resident,
and
regular
and
occasional
users)

°
Body
weight
­
Smallest
body
size
of
species
in
the
guild
°
FOF
­
Estimates
of
upper
bound
of
frequency
on
field
within
the
guild
(
95th
%
tile)

°
P­
Factor
­
Further
testing
and
review
required
for
on
field
persistence
factor,
but
initially
set
to
reflect
serial
correlation
in
foraging
behavior
14
Generic
Species
Approach
0.6
66.2
1264(
29.4)

Field
Edge
Herbivore
0.6
58.7
12.5(
1.47)

Field
Edge
Granivore
0.6
66.2
6.0(
0.13)

Field
Edge
Insectivore
0.8
98.9
719(
80.6)

Field
Resident
Herbivore
0.8
79..
3
19.5(
2.29)

Field
Resident
Granivore
0.8
98.8
64.0(
7.0)

Field
Resident
Insectivore
P­
factor
FOF
(%)

Body
wt1
(
sd)

(
g)

Species
1.
Max.&
min
set
at
plus/
minus
2.6
sd.
and
assumes
normal
distribution
15
Generic
Species
Approach
Next
Steps
°
Compile
and
analyze
additional
avian
crop
use
information
to
further
refine
generic
species
characteristics
and
use
information
°
Define
additional
generic
species
to
encompass
a
wider
range
of
avian
use
patterns
for
use
in
assessments
°
Conduct
sensitivity
analysis
to
identify
the
parameters
and
level
of
differentiation
necessary
in
defining
generic
species
to
give
an
representative
summary
of
risk
estimates
for
the
complex
of
avian
species
that
occur
in
and
around
pesticide
use
sites.