Classification of tree fructification [43].

<p>Classification of tree fructification [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0134124#pone.0134124.ref043" target="_blank">43</a>].</p

Mean beech mast intensity of the previous year, bank vole abundance, and human PUUV incidence in Germany 2001–2012.

<p>Bars = mean beech mast intensity of the previous year, solid line = bank vole abundance, and broken line = human PUUV incidence. Values are mean values ± one standard error from 7 Federal States. Upper bold values are beech mast intensity corresponding to bars at the bottom. (PUUV = Puumala virus; TN = trap nights).</p

Total reported annual human Puumala virus (PUUV) cases in Germany 2001–2012 (all 16 Federal States).

<p>Source: Robert Koch-Institute, SurvStat, <a href="http://www3.rki.de/SurvStat" target="_blank">http://www3.rki.de/SurvStat</a>, data status: 06/27/2014.</p

Number of notified human PUUV infections per Federal State in Germany from 2001–2012.

<p>Source: Robert Koch-Institute, SurvStat, <a href="http://www3.rki.de/SurvStat" target="_blank">http://www3.rki.de/SurvStat</a>, data status: 06/27/2014.</p><p>Number of notified human PUUV infections per Federal State in Germany from 2001–2012.</p

Demographic Determinants of Residue Profiles of Fungicidal Compounds in Common Voles (<i>Microtus arvalis</i>) under Semi-Natural and Natural Conditions

Environmental risks from plant protection products (PPPs) need to be assessed to ensure safe use. The risk assessments are generally carried out using the common vole as a focal species with conservative theoretical estimates of external exposure. These are then compared to dose-related toxicity endpoints established in toxicity studies, often with laboratory species. The aim of the present study was to determine the actual internal dosimetry of PPPs’ active ingredients (AIs) in a population of common voles to provide the basis for informed higher tier risk assessment. As a proof of concept, two fungicidal AIs (fludioxonil and cyprodinil) were investigated using a range of application methodologies. Individuals were treated using oral gavage application (AI dose: 100/200 mg/kg) and fed treated grass (AI sprayed at 2 kg/ha) under laboratory, semi-natural, and natural conditions. Our results show that demographic factors play a significant role in the individual residue profile and that age structure is a key aspect that determines the overall exposure risk of a population. These results are consistent from laboratory to field conditions. Future approaches could establish dose–residue relationships that are reflective of natural food intake rates in wild common vole populations in the risk assessment of PPPs

Sources of red fox (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>) liver samples used for local parameter association.

<p>Samples originated from 35 German administrative districts (shaded areas) within the federal states LS (Lower Saxony), NW (North Rhine-Westphalia), BB (Brandenburg) and BW (Baden-Wuerttemberg). Districts that provided at least 5 liver samples (striped areas) were used for local parameter analysis. The graphic is based on <a href="http://www.bkg.bund.de/nn_167688/SharedDocs/Download/DE-Karten/Verwaltungskarte-Deutschland-BRK-DIN-A3,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Verwaltungskarte-Deutschland-BRK-DIN-A3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bkg.bund.de/nn_167688/SharedDocs/Download/DE-Karten/Verwaltungskarte-Deutschland-BRK-DIN-A3,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Verwaltungskarte-Deutschland-BRK-DIN-A3.pdf</a> (accessed 15 January 2015) adjusted using ArcGIS 10.0.</p

Residues of anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) in red fox liver samples.

<p>Number (N) of red foxes (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>) containing residues and concentrations in μg/g of residues from AR positive individuals are stated for all eight analyzed ARs. % refers to the total number of 331 samples.</p

Residues of anticoagulant rodenticides in red fox liver samples.

<p>Percentage of samples containing no residues (n. d.), brodifacoum (BR), bromadiolone (BM), flocoumafen (F), difenacoum (DN) in four concentration classes.</p

Model results of associations between residue occurrence and local parameters.

<p>Residue occurrence (No. of pos and neg. individuals) of any anticoagulant rodenticide (AR) and for each active substance (brodifacoum–BR, bromadiolone–BM, difenacoum–DN and flocoumafen–F) in 14 districts was screened for associations with local parameters. Model results and pseudo r² values, including fixed and random factors, are given. Significant associations are marked with *.</p

Residues of first (FGARs) and second (SGARs) generation anticoagulant rodenticides in fox liver samples.

<p>FGARs include chlorophacinone, coumatetralyl and warfarin; SGARs include brodifacoum, bromadiolome, difenacoum, difethialone and flocoumafen. Left: FGAR (N = 3) and SGAR (N = 5) occurrence (one percentage value per active substance); Right: FGAR (N = 3) and SGAR (N = 5) residue concentrations (median residue concentration per active substance).</p