建立室内实验程序用于量化鸟类对种子消耗量的杀虫剂处理效应

种衣剂中使用的杀虫剂会影响鸟类对种子的消耗量，从而影响鸟类的实际暴露风险。虽然量化这种对消耗量的影响目前不被考虑在环境风险评估中，但这是一个潜在的选择，例如在比较不同农药的暴露风险时应予以考虑。这种方法可以突出用于防止鸟类服用致死或亚致死剂量的杀虫剂。为了制定一个标准，我们在已建立的笔试方法的基础上开发了一个室内测试程序，包括饥饿期的“两选择”和“无选择”阶段。测试期间采用动物福利的最高标准。利用统计方法确定最合适的重复次数并分析最终结果。杀虫剂对种子消耗量的影响用处理后种子与未处理种子消耗的比率表示。该消耗因子可作为种子处理的鸟类风险评估中的回避因子。 作为案例，我们提出了一个获得绿雀（Carduelis chloris）和日本鹌鹑（Coturnix japonica）对未处理和使用杀真菌剂处理的油菜籽（Brassica napus）的种子和特定物种消耗量因子的试验程序。总体来说，两种鸟类的体质都没有受到试验程序的负面影响。试验程序适用于显示预期消耗模式的差异，例如在“两选择”试验中比在“无选择”试验中对经过杀真菌剂处理的种子有更高的避免性。而种子消耗量在不同物种和杀真菌剂处理组有差别，这使得我们可以对不同杀真菌剂的规避效应进行排序。使用本文所提出的标准程序可以针对更多鸟类物种得到具有可比性的农药和物种特定的消费因子。

Proposed indoor test procedure to quantify pesticide treatment effects on seed consumption by birds

Pesticides used in seed coatings can influence consumption by birds and therefore actual exposure risk for them. A quantification of such effects on consumption is currently not regarded as a refinement factor in environmental risk assessments, although it is a possible option and should be considered, for example for comparing exposure risk of different pesticides. It can highlight avoidance behaviour preventing birds from taking up lethal or sublethal pesticide doses. To formulate a standard, we developed an indoor test procedure based on established pen test methods, including two- and no-choice phases with hunger periods. During testing, the highest standards of animal welfare were applied. Statistical approaches were used to determine the most appropriate number of replicates and for analysis of the final results. The effect on consumption of seeds is expressed as the ratio of consumed treated to untreated seeds. This consumption factor can be applied in avian risk assessments for seed treatments equivalent to an avoidance factor. We present, as an example, an application of the procedure to obtain a seed- and species-specific consumption factor for oil seed rape seeds (Brassica napus) provided untreated and treated with fungicides to greenfinches (Carduelis chloris) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Overall, bird constitution was not negatively affected by the test procedure in either species. The test procedure was suitable for showing differences in expected consumption patterns, such as greater avoidance of treated seeds in two-choice than in no-choice tests. However, the consumption differed between species and fungicide treatments, allowing us to rank avoidance effects of fungicides. Using the presented standard procedure to generate comparable pesticide- and species-specific consumption factors for more species.