pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23470 · v2 · pith:ZDWFIBKCnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

From Lab to Landscape: Assessing the Impact of Pesticides on Pollinator Populations Based on Laboratory Data by Combining ALMaSS and BufferGUTS

Florian Schunck , Agnieszka Bednarska , Leonhard B\"urger , Christopher John Topping , Andreas Focks , Xiaodong Duan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 05:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE
keywords environmental risk assessmentpollinator populationspesticide exposurelandscape simulationALMaSSBufferGUTSOsmia bicornissulfoxaflor
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coupling BufferGUTS to ALMaSS converts lab survival data into daily survival probabilities for landscape-scale bee population simulations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper integrates the BufferGUTS model into the ALMaSS landscape simulation framework to move pesticide risk assessment from laboratory toxicity thresholds to population-level outcomes under realistic exposure. Laboratory data on topical and oral exposure of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis to the pesticide Closer are used to calibrate BufferGUTS parameters, which are then transferred to ALMaSS model organisms. Simulations at varying application rates show the technical feasibility of the coupling and produce daily survival values with high numerical precision. A sympathetic reader would care because the work tests whether current environmental risk assessment can be improved by embedding mechanistic effect models inside individual-based landscape models.

Core claim

The integration of BufferGUTS into ALMaSS landscape simulation was achieved with high numerical precision, allowing for the calculation of daily survival probabilities for model organisms in the ALMaSS framework. Even extreme application rates only led to negligible population effects in ALMaSS simulations, but an exploratory analysis of pesticide-driven larval mortality showed that effects might be more severe when all life stages are considered.

What carries the argument

The parameter transfer step that takes BufferGUTS survival parameters calibrated on laboratory topical and oral exposure data and supplies them to ALMaSS model organisms to compute daily survival probabilities inside the landscape simulation.

If this is right

  • Mechanistic models embedded in individual-based frameworks can combine exposure and effect data for systems-based environmental risk assessment.
  • Current laboratory-derived thresholds may produce conservative estimates when only adult survival is modelled.
  • Full consideration of larval mortality across life stages could reveal stronger population-level consequences than adult-only simulations.
  • The approach demonstrates a pathway to bridge controlled experiments with landscape-scale risk assessments for next-generation ERA tools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the coupling to additional life stages or other non-target arthropods would test whether the negligible-effect result holds more generally.
  • If real landscapes include repeated applications or multiple pesticides, the combined exposure could push outcomes beyond the single-product negligible range shown here.
  • The high numerical precision of the integration suggests the main remaining uncertainty lies in the transferability of lab parameters rather than in the simulation mathematics.

Load-bearing premise

Parameters fitted to laboratory survival curves can be used directly in landscape simulations to represent actual field exposure and resulting population dynamics.

What would settle it

Population counts of Osmia bicornis in agricultural landscapes after documented sulfoxaflor applications at the modeled rates, compared against the ALMaSS predictions of negligible decline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23470 by Agnieszka Bednarska, Andreas Focks, Christopher John Topping, Florian Schunck, Leonhard B\"urger, Xiaodong Duan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ALMaSS–BufferGUTS integration: Aggregation of exposure buffers to harmonize exposure pathways. Exposure to pesticides depends on the landscape, pesticide application scenarios and modelled behaviour of the individual pollinators. The exposure buffers can be considered as compartmentalized environments that the pollinator carries along and their dynamics follows simplifying assumptions (Sections S1.1.1, S1.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Synthetic exposure profiles of 180 days for oral (mga.i. mg−1 nectar), topical (mga.i.) and contact (mga.i.) exposure (a, b, c) in and the continuous and discrete solutions of the buffer (d, e, f) damage (g) and survival equations (h), for η = 1000 and kd = 0.1. i, j, k, l: Alignment between discrete solutions and ALMaSS implementation for the parameter set used in the case study: kd = 0.079625 h −1 , hb =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BufferGUTS joint model fits for O. bicornis under sulfoxaflor exposure. Dots represent observations, solid lines represent the estimated survival probability and shaded areas indicate the uncertainty in the survival probability. a–e: Oral exposure. f–k: Topical exposure. Topical control treatments were set up with exposure to the surfactant Triton X-100 (f) and without exposure (k) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Yearly female mortality rate (female deaths per year caused by pesticide exposure divided by the total number of emerged females over the year) caused by pesticide exposure on Landscape 1 (73% arable fields) and 2 (52% arable fields) for the five adult exposure scenarios. Single: Only the maximum-a-posteriori GUTS parameter estimate was used to assess the population level impacts of pesticide exposure. Ran… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal dynamics of female population deviation from baseline on Landscape 2 for the ”all exposure paths” scenario using random parameter sets. Each line represents one simulation year (coloured from blue to red for years 20–30), showing the ratio of female population to baseline across the active season (days 90–170). Values near 1.0 indicate no deviation from baseline, while lower values indicate popula… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Female population size comparison between baseline, all exposure paths, and all-eggs scenarios on Landscape 1 and 2. The all-eggs scenarios include threshold-based egg mortality (mortality rate = 0.5) based on pesticide contamination in pollen provisions. Box plots show the median (green line), interquartile range (box), and range (whiskers) of female population across 30 replications over the last 10 year… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pesticides are designed to eradicate pests from crops, fulfilling an important role in the current agricultural system. However, nature conservation requires that pesticide applications are protective for non-target organisms, which provide ecosystem services on the other hand. Environmental risk assessment (ERA) is supposed to strike this balance, but the current use of laboratory derived toxicity thresholds in the landscape context, without consideration of population and landscape dynamics might be too coarse to achieve this task. Here, we propose to overcome this limitation by coupling the Animal, Landscape, and Man Simulation System with the BufferGUTS model for non-target arthropods. We conducted a case study of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis exposed to the pesticide formulation Closer (a.i. sulfoxaflor) to assess the integration. Laboratory survival data of topical and oral exposure to Closer were used to calibrate BufferGUTS models. The resulting parameters were used to parametrise model organisms in ALMaSS simulations to extrapolate the effects of sulfoxaflor at different exposure levels on population dynamics. The integration of BufferGUTS into ALMaSS landscape simulation was achieved with high numerical precision, allowing for the calculation of daily survival probabilities for model organisms in the ALMaSS framework. We found that even extreme application rates only led to negligible population effects in ALMaSS simulations, but an exploratory analysis of pesticide-driven larval mortality showed that effects might be more severe when all life stages are considered. The work demonstrates how mechanistic modelling embedded into individual based modelling frameworks can support ERA by combining exposure and effect in systems-based ERA tools, bridging the gap between controlled laboratory experiments and realistic landscape-scale risk assessments for next generation ERA.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes coupling the ALMaSS individual-based landscape model with the BufferGUTS toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic model to extrapolate laboratory survival data for Osmia bicornis exposed to sulfoxaflor (Closer) into landscape-scale population dynamics. Lab-derived topical and oral exposure data calibrate BufferGUTS parameters that are then used to set daily survival probabilities for ALMaSS model organisms; simulations at varying application rates report high numerical precision in the integration and negligible population-level effects, while an exploratory larval-mortality analysis indicates potentially stronger impacts when all life stages are considered.

Significance. If the parameter-transfer step is shown to be robust, the work would demonstrate a concrete route for embedding mechanistic effect models inside spatially explicit IBMs, thereby advancing systems-based ERA that links controlled dosing to realistic exposure and population processes. The explicit numerical-precision check and the authors' own caveat on omitted life stages are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (parameterisation of ALMaSS organisms) and Results (population-effect simulations)] The central claim of negligible population effects (even at extreme rates) rests on direct transfer of BufferGUTS parameters calibrated solely on laboratory topical/oral survival data into ALMaSS model organisms whose exposure is generated by landscape and behavior rules. No independent validation or sensitivity test of this transfer against variable field exposure is described; the reported numerical precision only confirms correct implementation of the survival function, not its ecological validity. This assumption is load-bearing for the extrapolation result.
  2. [Abstract and exploratory analysis paragraph] The exploratory larval-mortality analysis is presented as indicating potentially more severe effects, yet the main ALMaSS runs omit larval stages. Because the paper itself flags this incompleteness, the reported negligible effects cannot be taken as a comprehensive assessment of population consequences without a quantitative comparison of adult-only versus full-life-cycle scenarios.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Integration description] Clarify the exact mapping between BufferGUTS daily survival output and the ALMaSS individual mortality schedule (e.g., whether stochastic draws or deterministic thresholds are used).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the opportunity to clarify aspects of our work on coupling BufferGUTS with ALMaSS. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating planned revisions where they strengthen the manuscript without altering its core scope as a case study of model integration.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (parameterisation of ALMaSS organisms) and Results (population-effect simulations)] The central claim of negligible population effects (even at extreme rates) rests on direct transfer of BufferGUTS parameters calibrated solely on laboratory topical/oral survival data into ALMaSS model organisms whose exposure is generated by landscape and behavior rules. No independent validation or sensitivity test of this transfer against variable field exposure is described; the reported numerical precision only confirms correct implementation of the survival function, not its ecological validity. This assumption is load-bearing for the extrapolation result.

    Authors: The manuscript presents a mechanistic coupling where BufferGUTS parameters, calibrated on lab survival data, determine daily survival probabilities within ALMaSS's spatially explicit exposure and behavior framework. The high numerical precision confirms faithful implementation of this transfer. We acknowledge that independent field validation of the transferred parameters would further support ecological validity, but such data are outside the scope of the current case study. In revision we will add a sensitivity analysis on the BufferGUTS parameters (e.g., varying LC50 and slope within reported confidence intervals) to test robustness of the negligible-effect conclusion under the modeled landscape exposures. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract and exploratory analysis paragraph] The exploratory larval-mortality analysis is presented as indicating potentially more severe effects, yet the main ALMaSS runs omit larval stages. Because the paper itself flags this incompleteness, the reported negligible effects cannot be taken as a comprehensive assessment of population consequences without a quantitative comparison of adult-only versus full-life-cycle scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that a side-by-side quantitative comparison would clarify the implications of the omitted larval stages. The main simulations are restricted to adult stages because the available lab data and current ALMaSS Osmia implementation focus on adults; the larval analysis is explicitly labeled exploratory. In the revised manuscript we will expand the exploratory section to include a direct quantitative comparison of population trajectories (e.g., abundance and extinction risk metrics) between the adult-only runs and scenarios that incorporate the larval-mortality effect sizes derived from the same BufferGUTS framework. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Independent field validation data for the BufferGUTS-to-ALMaSS parameter transfer under variable real-world exposures are not available within the present study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: lab calibration feeds forward into independent landscape simulation

full rationale

The derivation chain consists of (1) fitting BufferGUTS parameters to independent laboratory survival data for Osmia bicornis under controlled topical/oral dosing, then (2) embedding those fixed parameters into ALMaSS to compute daily survival probabilities under spatially explicit exposure generated by the landscape model. The reported 'high numerical precision' is an implementation verification of the coupling, not a fitted or self-referential result. No step renames a fitted quantity as a prediction, invokes self-citation for a uniqueness claim, or defines the output in terms of the input. The central simulation outcomes (negligible adult effects at extreme rates) are therefore not forced by construction from the calibration data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of lab parameters to the simulation model and the accuracy of the coupled models in representing real dynamics.

free parameters (1)
  • BufferGUTS calibration parameters
    Fitted to laboratory survival data for topical and oral exposure to sulfoxaflor.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Laboratory toxicity parameters from BufferGUTS apply directly to field exposure conditions in the ALMaSS landscape model.
    Used to parametrize model organisms and calculate daily survival probabilities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5867 in / 1348 out tokens · 29060 ms · 2026-06-26T05:54:15.664245+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas

    Caspar A. Hallmann et al. “More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas”. In:PloS one12.10 (Jan. 2017), p. 0185809.doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0185809

    2017

  2. [2]

    Insect Declines in the Anthropocene

    David L. Wagner. “Insect Declines in the Anthropocene”. In:Annual review of entomology65 (Jan. 2020), pp. 457–480.issn: 0066-4170.doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151 2020

  3. [3]

    Arthropod Decline in Grasslands and Forests Is Associated with Landscape-Level Drivers

    Sebastian Seibold et al. “Arthropod Decline in Grasslands and Forests Is Associated with Landscape-Level Drivers”. In:Nature574.7780 (Oct. 2019), pp. 671–674.issn: 0028-0836, 1476-4687.doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3. (Visited on 11/27/2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3 2019

  4. [4]

    Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees

    Maj Rundl¨ of et al. “Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees”. In:Nature521.7550 (2015), pp. 77–80

    2015

  5. [5]

    Safeguarding Pollinators and Their Values to Human Well-Being

    Simon G. Potts et al. “Safeguarding Pollinators and Their Values to Human Well-Being”. In:Nature540.7632 (Dec. 2016), pp. 220–229.issn: 0028-0836, 1476-4687.doi: 10.1038/ nature20588. (Visited on 02/17/2026)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Bee Declines Driven by Combined Stress from Parasites, Pesticides, and Lack of Flowers

    Dave Goulson et al. “Bee Declines Driven by Combined Stress from Parasites, Pesticides, and Lack of Flowers”. In:Science347.6229 (Mar. 2015), p. 1255957.issn: 0036-8075, 1095-9203. doi:10.1126/science.1255957. (Visited on 02/17/2026)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1255957 2015

  7. [7]

    The Environmental Risks of Neonicotinoid Pesticides: A Review of the Evidence Post 2013

    Thomas James Wood and Dave Goulson. “The Environmental Risks of Neonicotinoid Pesticides: A Review of the Evidence Post 2013”. In:Environmental science and pollution research international24.21 (Jan. 2017), pp. 17285–17325.doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x 2013

  8. [8]

    No Net Insect Abundance and Diversity Declines across US Long Term Ecological Research Sites

    Michael S. Crossley et al. “No Net Insect Abundance and Diversity Declines across US Long Term Ecological Research Sites”. In:Nature ecology & evolution4.10 (Jan. 2020), pp. 1368–1376. doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1269-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41559-020-1269-4 2020

  9. [9]

    A Balance of Winners and Losers in the Anthropocene

    Maria Dornelas et al. “A Balance of Winners and Losers in the Anthropocene”. In:Ecology letters22.5 (Jan. 2019), pp. 847–854.doi:10.1111/ele.13242

    work page doi:10.1111/ele.13242 2019

  10. [10]

    Alicante, A

    Johan Axelman et al. “A systems-based analysis to rethink the European environmental risk assessment of regulated chemicals using pesticides as a pilot case”. In:Science of The Total Environment948 (2024), p. 174526.issn: 0048-9697.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2024.174526.url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S00489697240467...

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2024

  11. [11]

    REVIEW: Towards a Systems Approach for Understanding Honeybee Decline: A Stocktaking and Synthesis of Existing Models

    Matthias A. Becher et al. “REVIEW: Towards a Systems Approach for Understanding Honeybee Decline: A Stocktaking and Synthesis of Existing Models”. In:Journal of Applied Ecology50.4 (Aug. 2013). Ed. by Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, pp. 868–880.issn: 0021-8901, 1365-2664.doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12112. (Visited on 02/24/2026)

    work page doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12112 2013

  12. [12]

    Bumble-BEEHA VE: A Systems Model for Exploring Multifactorial Causes of Bumblebee Decline at Individual, Colony, Population and Community Level

    Matthias A. Becher et al. “Bumble-BEEHA VE: A Systems Model for Exploring Multifactorial Causes of Bumblebee Decline at Individual, Colony, Population and Community Level”. In: Journal of Applied Ecology55.6 (Nov. 2018). Ed. by Jacqueline Beggs, pp. 2790–2801.issn: 0021-8901, 1365-2664.doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13165. (Visited on 02/24/2026)

    work page doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13165 2018

  13. [13]

    SolBeePop: A Model of Solitary Bee Populations in Agricultural Landscapes

    Amelie Schmolke, Nika Galic, and Silvia Hinarejos. “SolBeePop: A Model of Solitary Bee Populations in Agricultural Landscapes”. In:Journal of Applied Ecology60.12 (Dec. 2023), pp. 2573–2585.issn: 0021-8901, 1365-2664.doi: 10.1111/1365- 2664.14541 . (Visited on 02/23/2026)

    work page doi:10.1111/1365- 2023

  14. [14]

    Modelling skylarks (Alauda arvensis) to predict impacts of changes in land management and policy: development and testing of an agent-based model

    Christopher J Topping, Peter Odderskær, and Johnny Kahlert. “Modelling skylarks (Alauda arvensis) to predict impacts of changes in land management and policy: development and testing of an agent-based model”. In:PLoS One8.6 (2013), e65803

    2013

  15. [15]

    Spatial dynamic factors affecting population-level risk assessment for a terrestrial arthropod: an agent-based modeling approach

    Chris J Topping and Malgorzata Lagisz. “Spatial dynamic factors affecting population-level risk assessment for a terrestrial arthropod: an agent-based modeling approach”. In:Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal18.1 (2012), pp. 168–180

    2012

  16. [16]

    ALMaSS Landscape and Farming Simulation: software classes and methods

    Christopher John Topping and Xiaodong Duan. “ALMaSS Landscape and Farming Simulation: software classes and methods”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal5 (2024), e121215.doi: 10.3897/fmj.5.121215 . eprint: https://doi.org/10.3897/fmj.5.121215 . url:https://doi.org/10.3897/fmj.5.121215

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.5.121215 2024

  17. [17]

    Managing large and complex population op- erations with agent-based models: The ALMaSS Population Manager

    Christopher John Topping and Xiaodong Duan. “Managing large and complex population op- erations with agent-based models: The ALMaSS Population Manager”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal5 (2024), e117593

    2024

  18. [18]

    A general subpopulation model for the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)

    Xiaodong Duan and Christopher J. Topping. “A general subpopulation model for the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal5 (2024), e122467.doi: 10.3897/fmj.5.122467. eprint: https://doi.org/10.3897/ fmj.5.122467.url:https://doi.org/10.3897/fmj.5.122467

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.5.122467 2024

  19. [19]

    Apis RAM Formal Model Description

    Xiaodong Duan et al. “Apis RAM Formal Model Description”. In:EFSA Supporting Publications 19.2 (2022), 7184E

    2022

  20. [20]

    The Formal Model for the solitary bee Osmia bicornis L. agent-based model

    El˙ zbieta Zi´ o lkowska et al. “The Formal Model for the solitary bee Osmia bicornis L. agent-based model”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal4 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    The Formal Model for Noctua Pronuba (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) Representing a Typical Agricultural-Landscape Night-Flying Moth Species for Pesticide Risk Assessment

    Christopher John Topping and Lars B. Pettersson. “The Formal Model for Noctua Pronuba (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) Representing a Typical Agricultural-Landscape Night-Flying Moth Species for Pesticide Risk Assessment”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal6 (Dec. 2025), e165232.issn: 2815-3197.doi: 10.3897/fmj.6.165232. (Visited on 02/25/2026). 20/71

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.6.165232 2025

  22. [22]

    The Formal Model for the Hoverfly Eristalis Tenax (Diptera, Syrphidae) Agent-Based Model in the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)

    El˙ zbieta Zi´ o lkowska, Aleksandra Walczy´ nska, and Christopher John Topping. “The Formal Model for the Hoverfly Eristalis Tenax (Diptera, Syrphidae) Agent-Based Model in the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal6 (July 2025), e152847.issn: 2815-3197.doi: 10.3897/fmj.6.152847 . (Visited o...

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.6.152847 2025

  23. [23]

    The Formal Model for the Butterfly Pieris Napi (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) Agent-Based Model in the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)

    Christopher John Topping and Xiaodong Duan. “The Formal Model for the Butterfly Pieris Napi (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) Agent-Based Model in the Animal Landscape and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS)”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal6 (Feb. 2025), e142802. issn: 2815-3197.doi:10.3897/fmj.6.142802. (Visited on 02/25/2026)

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.6.142802 2025

  24. [24]

    Modelling dynamic pesticide amounts in multiple environmental compartments at landscape scales in ALMaSS

    Trine Poulsen, Xiaodong Duan, and Christopher J. Topping. “Modelling dynamic pesticide amounts in multiple environmental compartments at landscape scales in ALMaSS”. In:Food and Ecological Systems Modelling Journal4 (2023), e107849.doi: 10.3897/fmj.4.107849. eprint: https://doi.org/10.3897/fmj.4.107849.url: https://doi.org/10.3897/fmj.4.107849

    work page doi:10.3897/fmj.4.107849 2023

  25. [25]

    Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil

    J-M Bonmatin et al. “Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil”. In: Environmental science and pollution research22 (2015), pp. 35–67

    2015

  26. [26]

    Advantages of Toxicokinetic and Toxicodynamic Mod- elling in Aquatic Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment

    Roman Ashauer and Beate I. Escher. “Advantages of Toxicokinetic and Toxicodynamic Mod- elling in Aquatic Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment”. In:Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM12.11 (Jan. 2010), pp. 2056–61.issn: 1464-0325.doi:10.1039/c0em00234h

    work page doi:10.1039/c0em00234h 2010

  27. [27]

    General Unified Threshold Model of Survival–a Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Framework for Ecotoxicology

    Tjalling Jager et al. “General Unified Threshold Model of Survival–a Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Framework for Ecotoxicology”. In:Environmental science & technology45.7 (Jan. 1, 2011), pp. 2529–40.doi:10.1021/es103092a

    work page doi:10.1021/es103092a 2011

  28. [28]

    Calibration and Validation of Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Models for Three Neonicotinoids and Some Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

    Andreas Focks et al. “Calibration and Validation of Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Models for Three Neonicotinoids and Some Aquatic Macroinvertebrates”. In:Ecotoxicology (London, England)27.7 (Jan. 2018), pp. 992–1007.doi:10.1007/s10646-018-1940-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10646-018-1940-6 2018

  29. [29]

    Joint Survival Modelling for Multiple Species Exposed to Toxicants

    Alexander Singer, Dirk Nickisch, and Andr´ e Gergs. “Joint Survival Modelling for Multiple Species Exposed to Toxicants”. In:Science of The Total Environment857 (Jan. 2023), p. 159266. issn: 00489697.doi: 10 . 1016 / j . scitotenv . 2022 . 159266.url: https : / / linkinghub . elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969722063653(visited on 03/27/2024)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Modelling Survival: Exposure Pattern, Species Sensitivity and Uncer- tainty

    Roman Ashauer et al. “Modelling Survival: Exposure Pattern, Species Sensitivity and Uncer- tainty”. In:Scientific Reports6.1 (July 6, 2016), p. 29178.issn: 2045-2322.doi: 10.1038/ srep29178.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29178(visited on 02/28/2024)

    2016

  31. [31]

    Linking Morphology, Toxicokinetic, and Toxicodynamic Traits of Aquatic Invertebrates to Pyrethroid Sensitivity

    Kristoffer Dalhoff et al. “Linking Morphology, Toxicokinetic, and Toxicodynamic Traits of Aquatic Invertebrates to Pyrethroid Sensitivity”. In:Environmental science & technology54.9 (Jan. 1, 2020), pp. 5687–5699.doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00189

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00189 2020

  32. [32]

    Can Toxicokinetic and Toxicodynamic Modeling Be Used to Under- stand and Predict Synergistic Interactions Between Chemicals?

    Nina Cedergreen et al. “Can Toxicokinetic and Toxicodynamic Modeling Be Used to Under- stand and Predict Synergistic Interactions Between Chemicals?” In:Environmental science & technology51.24 (Jan. 1, 2017), pp. 14379–14389.doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02723

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02723 2017

  33. [33]

    How to Analyse and Account for Interactions in Mixture Toxicity with Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Models

    Sylvain Bart et al. “How to Analyse and Account for Interactions in Mixture Toxicity with Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic Models”. In:The Science of the total environment843 (Jan. 1, 2022), p. 157048.issn: 0048-9697.doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157048. 21/71

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157048 2022

  34. [34]

    BeeGUTS—A Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic Model for the Interpretation and Integration of Acute and Chronic Honey Bee Tests

    Jan Baas et al. “BeeGUTS—A Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic Model for the Interpretation and Integration of Acute and Chronic Honey Bee Tests”. In:Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry41.9 (Sept. 2022), pp. 2193–2201.issn: 0730-7268, 1552-8618.doi: 10.1002/etc

    work page doi:10.1002/etc 2022

  35. [35]

    (Visited on 03/19/2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    SolBeePopEcotox: A Population Model for Pesticide Risk Assessments of Solitary Bees

    Amelie Schmolke et al. “SolBeePopEcotox: A Population Model for Pesticide Risk Assessments of Solitary Bees”. In:Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry43.12 (Dec. 2024), pp. 2645–2661. issn: 0730-7268, 1552-8618.doi:10.1002/etc.5990. (Visited on 02/23/2026)

    work page doi:10.1002/etc.5990 2024

  37. [37]

    From water to land—Usage of Generalized Unified Threshold models of Survival (GUTS) in an above-ground terrestrial context exemplified by honeybee survival data

    Leonhard Urs B¨ urger and Andreas Focks. “From water to land—Usage of Generalized Unified Threshold models of Survival (GUTS) in an above-ground terrestrial context exemplified by honeybee survival data”. en. In:Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry44.2 (Feb. 2025), pp. 589–598.issn: 0730-7268, 1552-8618.doi: 10.1093/etojnl/vgae058 .url: https:// academi...

    work page doi:10.1093/etojnl/vgae058 2025

  38. [38]

    Combined Modeling of Multiple Ex- posure Routes for Terrestrial Arthropods Using the Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic BufferGUTS Model

    Leonhard U. B¨ urger, Florian Schunck, and Andreas Focks. “Combined Modeling of Multiple Ex- posure Routes for Terrestrial Arthropods Using the Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic BufferGUTS Model”. In:Environmental Science & Technology(July 2025), acs.est.5c03925.issn: 0013-936X, 1520-5851.doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c03925. (Visited on 07/31/2025)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c03925 2025

  39. [39]

    Combined Effects of Commercial Insecticides on Survival of the Red Mason Bee Osmia Bicornis

    Anna Misiewicz et al. “Combined Effects of Commercial Insecticides on Survival of the Red Mason Bee Osmia Bicornis”. In:Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety304 (Oct. 2025), p. 119023.issn: 01476513.doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.119023. (Visited on 11/27/2025)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.119023 2025

  40. [40]

    Interactive Effects of Two Commonly Used Insecticides on Survival of the Red Mason Bee (Osmia bicornis)

    Maryellen Zbrozek. “Interactive Effects of Two Commonly Used Insecticides on Survival of the Red Mason Bee (Osmia bicornis)”. Krak´ ow, Poland: Institute of Environmental Sciences, Biology Faculty, Jagiellonian University, 2022

    2022

  41. [41]

    Miller, Gail Gong, and Alvaro Mu˜ noz.Survival Analysis

    Rupert G. Miller, Gail Gong, and Alvaro Mu˜ noz.Survival Analysis. Wiley classics library ed (Online-Ausg.) Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley- Interscience, 1998.isbn: 978-1-118-03106-3 978-0-471-25548-2 978-0-471-09434-0

    1998

  42. [42]

    Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.isbn: 978-3-030-33438-3 978-3-030-33439-0

    John O’Quigley.Survival Analysis: Proportional and Non-Proportional Hazards Regression. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.isbn: 978-3-030-33438-3 978-3-030-33439-0. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33439-0. (Visited on 11/27/2024)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33439-0 2021

  43. [43]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Matthew D. Hoffman and Andrew Gelman.The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. en. arXiv:1111.4246 [cs, stat]. Nov. 2011.url: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4246(visited on 12/14/2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    Conclusion on the Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Sulfoxaflor

    European Food Safety Authority. “Conclusion on the Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Sulfoxaflor”. In:EFSA Journal12.5 (May 2014).issn: 18314732, 18314732.doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3692. (Visited on 11/04/2025)

    work page doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3692 2014

  45. [45]

    Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic Modelling in an Individual Based Context— Consequences of Parameter Variability

    Roman Ashauer. “Toxicokinetic–Toxicodynamic Modelling in an Individual Based Context— Consequences of Parameter Variability”. In:Ecological Modelling221.9 (May 2010), pp. 1325– 1328.issn: 03043800.doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.01.015. (Visited on 02/17/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.01.015 2010

  46. [46]

    Past Insecticide Exposure Reduces Bee Reproduction and Population Growth Rate

    Clara Stuligross and Neal M. Williams. “Past Insecticide Exposure Reduces Bee Reproduction and Population Growth Rate”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118.48 (Jan. 2021).issn: 0027-8424.doi: 10.1073/pnas.2109909118. 22/71

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2109909118 2021

  47. [47]

    Systemic Pesticides in a Solitary Bee Pollen Food Store Affect Larval Development and Increase Pupal Mortality

    Ngoc T. Phan et al. “Systemic Pesticides in a Solitary Bee Pollen Food Store Affect Larval Development and Increase Pupal Mortality”. In:Science of The Total Environment915 (Mar. 2024), p. 170048.issn: 00489697.doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170048 . (Visited on 11/28/2025)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170048 2024

  48. [48]

    The Develop- ment of the Solitary Bee Osmia Bicornis Is Affected by Some Insecticide Agrochemicals at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations

    Jaya Sravanthi Mokkapati, Agnieszka J. Bednarska, and Ryszard Laskowski. “The Develop- ment of the Solitary Bee Osmia Bicornis Is Affected by Some Insecticide Agrochemicals at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations”. In:Science of The Total Environment775 (June 2021), p. 145588.issn: 00489697.doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145588 . (Visited on 11/27/2025)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145588 2021

  49. [49]

    Metabolism ofN-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone in Honey Bee Adults and Larvae: Exploring Age Related Differences in Toxic Effects

    Julia D. Fine and Christopher A. Mullin. “Metabolism ofN-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone in Honey Bee Adults and Larvae: Exploring Age Related Differences in Toxic Effects”. In:Environmental Science & Technology51.19 (Oct. 2017), pp. 11412–11422.issn: 0013-936X, 1520-5851.doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03291. (Visited on 06/22/2026)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b03291 2017

  50. [50]

    Expression Profile of the Entire Detoxification Gene Inventory of the Western Honeybee, Apis Mellifera across Life Stages

    Frank Maiwald et al. “Expression Profile of the Entire Detoxification Gene Inventory of the Western Honeybee, Apis Mellifera across Life Stages”. In:Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 192 (May 2023), p. 105410.issn: 00483575.doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2023.105410. (Visited on 06/22/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2023.105410 2023

  51. [51]

    Sinauer Associates Sunderland, MA, 2001

    Hal Caswell.Matrix population models. Sinauer Associates Sunderland, MA, 2001

    2001

  52. [52]

    In VivoDistribution and Metabolisation Of 14 C-imidacloprid in Different Compartments ofApis MelliferaL

    S´ everine Suchail et al. “In VivoDistribution and Metabolisation Of 14 C-imidacloprid in Different Compartments ofApis MelliferaL”. In:Pest Management Science60.11 (Nov. 2004), pp. 1056–1062.issn: 1526-498X, 1526-4998.doi:10.1002/ps.895. (Visited on 06/20/2025)

    work page doi:10.1002/ps.895 2004

  53. [53]

    In VivoMetabolic Fate of [14 C]-acetamiprid in Six Biological Compartments of the Honeybee,Apis MelliferaL

    Jean-Luc Brunet, Alexandra Badiou, and Luc P Belzunces. “In VivoMetabolic Fate of [14 C]-acetamiprid in Six Biological Compartments of the Honeybee,Apis MelliferaL”. In: Pest Management Science61.8 (Aug. 2005), pp. 742–748.issn: 1526-498X, 1526-4998.doi: 10.1002/ps.1046. (Visited on 06/20/2025)

    work page doi:10.1002/ps.1046 2005

  54. [54]

    Pharmacokinetics of Three Neonicotinoid Insecticides upon Contact Exposure in the Western Honey Bee,Apis Mellifera

    Marion Zaworra et al. “Pharmacokinetics of Three Neonicotinoid Insecticides upon Contact Exposure in the Western Honey Bee,Apis Mellifera”. In:Chemical Research in Toxicology32.1 (Jan. 2019), pp. 35–37.issn: 0893-228X, 1520-5010.doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00315. (Visited on 06/24/2024)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00315 2019

  55. [55]

    Extending GUTS to Account for Oral Exposure in Bees: Preconditions, Model Options, and Evaluation of Published Approaches

    Tjalling Jager. “Extending GUTS to Account for Oral Exposure in Bees: Preconditions, Model Options, and Evaluation of Published Approaches”. In:Ecological Modelling517 (July 2026), p. 111614.issn: 03043800.doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2026.111614. (Visited on 05/22/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2026.111614 2026

  56. [56]

    Plant Protection Product Residues in Plant Pollen and Nectar: A Review of Current Knowledge

    Elena Zioga et al. “Plant Protection Product Residues in Plant Pollen and Nectar: A Review of Current Knowledge”. In:Environmental Research189 (Oct. 2020), p. 109873.issn: 00139351. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109873. (Visited on 06/06/2025)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109873 2020

  57. [57]

    Pesticide Mixtures Detected in Crop and Non-Target Wild Plant Pollen and Nectar

    Elena Zioga, Bl´ anaid White, and Jane C. Stout. “Pesticide Mixtures Detected in Crop and Non-Target Wild Plant Pollen and Nectar”. In:Science of The Total Environment879 (June 2023), p. 162971.issn: 00489697.doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162971 . (Visited on 06/06/2025). 23/71

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162971 2023

  58. [58]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 23053 (2024)

    Celeste Azpiazu et al. “Chronic Oral Exposure to Field-Realistic Pesticide Combinations via Pollen and Nectar: Effects on Feeding and Thermal Performance in a Solitary Bee”. In:Scientific Reports9.1 (Sept. 2019), p. 13770.issn: 2045-2322.doi: 10.1038/s41598- 019- 50255- 4 . (Visited on 06/06/2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598- 2019

  59. [59]

    Integrating in silico models and read-across methods for predicting toxicity of chemicals: A step-wise strategy

    Emilio Benfenati et al. “Integrating in silico models and read-across methods for predicting toxicity of chemicals: A step-wise strategy”. In:Environment international131 (Jan. 2019). Num Pages: 15, p. 105060.doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105060 2019

  60. [60]

    Bio-QSARs 2.0: Unlocking a new level of predictive power for machine learning-based ecotoxicity predictions by exploiting chemical and biological information

    Jochen P. Zubrod et al. “Bio-QSARs 2.0: Unlocking a new level of predictive power for machine learning-based ecotoxicity predictions by exploiting chemical and biological information”. en. In:Environment International186 (Apr. 2024), p. 108607.issn: 01604120.doi: 10 . 1016/j.envint.2024.108607 .url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S016041202...

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Tjalling Jager and Roman Ashauer.Modelling Survival under Chemical Stress: A Comprehensive Guide to the GUTS Framework. 2nd ed. Leanpub, Jan. 2018.isbn: 978-1-9999705-1-2. 24/71 Supporting information S1 Model Description—A F ramework for integrating TKTD models into ALMaSS The buffers in the BufferGUTS models are the interfaces through which a given orga...

    2018

  62. [62]

    The unit of the fixed buffer is also the unit of the aggregated buffer

  63. [63]

    ""Bufferguts model used for visualizations and method development

    Because the buffer will enter the sum unmodified, it should be the buffer that is most accurately described and matches the reality best. The approach requires experimental data for oral, contact and topical exposure paths. If such data are unavailable, either further assumptions to rescale the buffers before summing have to be taken, which heavily rely o...

    2072