BioRisk 8: 73-87 (20 | 3) ae eee BAS iccess journa I doi: 10.3897/biorisk.8.3255 RESEARCH ARTICLE & B lO R IS www.pensoftonline.net/biorisk Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO cultivation. Requirements — Methodology — Standardisation Andrea Ruf', Anneke Beylich*, Theo Blick?, Wolfgang Biichs*, Frank Glante’, Sebastian Héss®, Martina Rofs-Nickoll’, Liliane Ruefs*, David J. Russell’, Jorg Rombke"®, Heike Seitz'', Bernhard TheifSen'?, Andreas Toschki', Cathrin Weimann'?, Wiebke Ziighart'* | Carl von Ossietzky Universitit Oldenburg, Ammerlinder Heerstr. 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg 2 IFAB GmbH, Sodenkamp 59, 22337 Hamburg 3 Senckenberg Gesellschaft fur Naturforschung, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main 4 Julius-Kiihn-Institut, Institut fiir Pflanzenbau und Bodenkunde, Bunde- sallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig 5 Umweltbundesamt, Worlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau 6 Ecossa, Giselastr. 6, 82319 Starnberg 7 Institut fiir Umweltforschung (Biologie V), RWTH Aachen, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen 8 Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Institut fiir Biologie und Okologie, Invalidenstrafee 42, 10115 Berlin 9 Senckenberg Museum fur Naturkunde Gorlitz, Postfach 300 154, 02826 Gorlitz \0 ECT Oekoto- xikologie GmbH, 65439 Florsheim/Main \1 Gemeinniitzige Forschunesgemeinschaft Bionik Kompetenznetz e.V. BIOKON international, Ackerstrafse 76, 13355 Berlin \2. Forschungsinstitut fiir Okosystemanalyse und —bewertung e.V. - gaiac, Kackertstr. 10, 52072 Aachen \3 Universitat Trier, Biogeographie, Am Wissenschaf- tspark 25-27, 54296 Trier \4 Bundesamt fiir Naturschutz, FG II 1.3, Konstantinstr. 110, 53179 Bonn Corresponding author: Andrea Ruf (andrea.ruf@uni-oldenburg.de) Academic editor: /. Settele | Received 19 April 2012 | Accepted 27 December 2012 | Published 8 August 2013 Citation: Ruf A, Beylich A, Blick T, Biichs W, Glante EK Héss S, Rof-Nickoll M, Ruef$ L, Russell DJ, Rombke J, Seitz H, TheifSen B, Toschki A, Weimann C, Ziighart W (2013) Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO cultivation. Requirements — Methodology — Standardisation. BioRisk 8: 73-87. doi: 10.3897/biorisk.8.3255 Abstract After a release of genetically modified organisms, monitoring of potential adverse effects on the environ- ment is mandatory. The protocol used for monitoring should be previously tested in practical studies and must be standardised. Moreover, sampling methods and the evaluation of results must meet current scien- tific and technical standards. Due to their particular role in maintaining soil quality and in a multitude of ecological processes in agro-ecosystems, soil organisms belong to those groups for which VDI guidelines are being developed. The guideline 4331 Part 1 describes fundamental criteria for the selection and sam- Copyright Andrea Ruf et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 74 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) pling of soil organisms for GMO monitoring and gives guidance for sampling design, sampling strategy and statistical evaluation. In the guideline three approaches are followed: (1) a compilation of previously known effects and exposure pathways, (2) a documentation of ecological functions of soil organisms (eco- system services) as well as (3) a description of characteristic species compositions in the soil. The aim was to develop a selection matrix that helps to choose the appropriate animal groups to be sampled. Besides the habitat type and the ecological relevance, the selection matrix also considers the suitability of animal groups in terms of practical issues and, in specific cases, anticipated effects. Further parts of the guideline 4331 will describe sampling methods for relevant soil animal groups. Keywords Soil Organism, Monitoring, Genetically Modified Organism, Standardisation, Sampling Introduction European directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organ- isms (GMOs) into the environment prescribes compulsory post-market monitoring as a means of identifying adverse effects of GMOs and their use on the environment [EC 2001]. Consequently, the prevention of the potential occurrence of adverse effects on the environment attributable to the cultivation of authorised genetically modified or- ganisms and the retrospective documentation of any such effects is a mandatory require- ment. This calls for the implementation of a robust programme of case-specific monitor- ing and general surveillance to identify negative environmental impacts [GenTG 2010]. To ensure that the data obtained from GMO monitoring is comparable, repro- ducible and interpretable, it is essential that field-tested, standardised sampling and evaluation methods are used, which are available prior to the commencement of moni- toring programmes [EC 2002]. Appropriate monitoring methods must be described in a manner that is both practical and understandable, e.g. in the form of guidelines or concrete instructions [Nobel et al. 2005]. Established methods used in existing en- vironmental monitoring programmes and concepts may form the basis for developing a suitable and specific methodological repertoire for GMO monitoring [UPB 1996, Barth et al. 2000]. It may be necessary to develop additional methods to address new issues specific to genetic engineering. Potential environmental impacts resulting from the cultivation of GMOs can af- fect any ecosystem. For this reason it is important to have access to a comprehensive methodological repertoire from which a suitable monitoring method can be selected according to the type and characteristics of the GMO. The results of a scientific review showed, however, that there is still a need for standardised GMO monitoring methods for a significant number of relevant animal groups [Lang 2007]. Soil organisms, wild honeybees and amphibians are of particular priority. Although a wide range of species- monitoring programmes exists at regional and national levels, the methods used are rarely standardised and not always suitable for characterising the effects of GMOs. Due to their particular role in maintaining soil quality and in a multitude of eco- logical processes in agro-ecosystems, soil organisms belong to those groups for which Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 75 draft guidelines are being developed (VDI 4331 guidelines series). Guideline 4331 Part 1 provides the framework for this series: “Monitoring the Effects of Genetically Modi- fied Organisms (GMOs) — the Effects of GMO Cultivation on Soil Organisms”. ‘This guideline describes fundamental criteria for the selection and sampling of soil organ- isms for GMO monitoring and gives guidance on sampling design, sampling strategy and statistical evaluation. The guideline is intended to summarise and further develop existing individual standards [e.g. ISO 2006a, ISO 2006b, ISO 2007a, ISO 2007 b, ISO 2010a, ISO 2010b]. It can also be used for other soil monitoring objectives. Monitoring the potential effects of GMO cultivation on soil organisms Opportunities and challenges relating to the sampling of soil organisms A programme to monitor the effects of GMOs in the field must aim to determine not only monocausal effects on individual species, as with laboratory studies, but also the consequences of direct and indirect cause-effect chains on organisms, their ecological communities (biocenoses) and their functions. The VDI monitoring guideline for soil organisms is thus based on three assessment levels (approaches): (1) effects and expo- sure pathways previously identified in laboratory tests and experimental investigations, (2) ecosystem services provided by soil organisms and (3) soil biodiversity. Genetically modified organisms can directly affect soil biodiversity as well as the natural functioning of soil as a habitat for soil organisms (§2 (2) 1.a BBodSchG 1998 - German Federal Soil Protection Act) [BBodSchG 1998]. As a result, this can ad- versely affect the ecosystem services provided by these organisms as a whole. Targeted monitoring of selected animal groups can also provide information about the decom- position, balancing, buffering and restoration properties of soil. Besides the determina- tion of direct effects of GMOs, soil organisms can also be used to monitor landscape changes caused indirectly by GMO cultivation, in particular due to changes in soil cultivation methods and crop rotation. Only regarding the diversity or services of soil organisms, observed at a particular site during the course of GMO monitoring, does not provide sufficient information about the ecological condition of the soil community (including potential effects of GMOs on this community). A set of assessment criteria (i.e. a reference system from which target values can be derived) must be additionally established for each measure- ment parameter in order to determine whether a specific observation is negative or posi- tive. Such references must be defined in terms of “good ecological status” [UBA 2008], as this is the only way to identify and evaluate a deviation [Toschki 2008, Kowarik et al. 2006, Ziighart and Breckling 2003a, Ziighart and Breckling 2003b]. Assessment of biodiversity would be either impossible or highly inaccurate without an understanding of natural fluctuations in species incidence at the respective sites [Heissenberger et al. 2003]. Furthermore, when defining a reference system, thresholds must be established, exceedance of which indicates a significant or harmful deviation [Potthast 2004]. In 76 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) concrete terms, a reference system for the diversity of soil organisms may consist of lists of species, which are expected to be present at a specific site associated with specific conditions (e.g. climate, soil factors, region etc.). The reference sites for biological soil quality defined in the Netherlands are one example of such a reference system [Rutgers et al. 2008, Rutgers et al. 2009]. Proposals for a Europe-wide monitoring of soil qual- ity put forward by the EU ENVASSO (Environmental Assessment of Soil for Moni- toring) project also call for the development of a reference system [Beylich and Graefe 2009, Bispo et al. 2009, Cluzeau et al. 2012, Rombke et al. 2012]. How a reference system can be adapted to different sites (in terms of feasibil- ity, differentiated according to site types) remains to be clarified. Standardised and systematic investigation of species, communities and site conditions at as many sites as possible is required to provide a basis for assessing species diversity and their eco- system services, including their variability [Toschki 2008, Rombke and Breure 2005]. Whilst literature provides this information for many groups of organisms (i.e. plants and vertebrates) and regions, there is a dearth of data available for the majority of invertebrates, in particular those which live in the soil. There are two different ap- proaches, which may (and in some cases must) be used in combination, and which can be described as follows for the purpose of evaluating the effects of GMPs (genetically modified plants) [VDI 4330 Part 1 2006]: Temporal comparison: comparison of the environmental condition prior to the cultivation of GMPs with the condition following the cultivation of GMPs. Spatial comparison (differentiated by region): comparison of GMP and GMP-free monitoring areas at the same time. In the case of temporal comparisons, recording the conditions prior to the cultiva- tion of GM crops must be performed using selected sampling points. ‘The reliability of the reference data is thereby dependent on the time at which monitoring of the condi- tions prior to cultivation takes place. Where appropriate, existing data may be used that describe the fluctuation of measurement parameters that are not associated with GMPs. A spatial comparison requires reference areas where no GMPs have been grown and that differ as little as possible from the GMP sites. GMP and reference areas may also be subjected to changes which are not attribut- able to the GM crop [VDI 4330 Part 1 2006]. The biodiversity and ecosystem ser- vices of soil organisms are generally influenced by a multitude of factors (e.g. climate, chemical pollution etc.), which in individual cases makes it difficult to distinguish between GMP-related effects and other effects [Toschki 2008]. To identify causal relationships, further complimentary and reciprocal studies are needed (weight of evidence approach) [Linkov et al. 2009]. This may involve laboratory tests or studies using terrestrial model ecosystems [see Schaffer et al. 2010], although ideally field ex- periments with soil organisms should be conducted on sites which have been partially planted with GM crops. Isogenic plants are then cultivated in parallel on control plots on the same site to ensure that both plots differ by only a single factor. In other words, this type of spatially and temporally adjacent control can be considered as a special type of reference area. Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 77 Potential effects of GMO cultivation on soil organisms Toxins such as the insecticidal Bt maize protein can damage organisms directly (due to death or reduced fertility), or indirectly by affecting prey organisms, predators, com- petitors or mutualists. Changes in land management practices caused by the cultiva- tion of GM crops, which affect soil cultivation, application of organic material and soil coverage, have a significant impact on soil organisms. In this context, the following research findings are particularly relevant to the design of monitoring programmes: 1) Many Bt toxins are able to persist in soil or in the droppings of different herbivo- rous soil invertebrates for more than one growing season [Zurbriigg and Nentwig 2009, Escher et al. 2000]. Sublethal effects can lead to long-term population chang- es [Hénemann and Nentwig 2009, Escher et al. 2000, Vercesi et al. 2006, Xin et al. 2004, Zwahlen et al. 2003, Hoss et al. 2008, Hoss et al. 2011]. Moreover, biologi- cal systems show delayed direct or indirect responses to toxins depending on the generation and age of the organism (see Zurbriigg and Nentwig 2009, Saxena et al. 2002, Donegan and Seidler 1999]. For this reason, a long-term monitoring plan should be implemented which extends beyond the period of GMO cultivation. 2) GMO-related changes of the structure and function of soil microflora, particu- larly in the rhizosphere or litter layer, can alter carbon transformation rates, and as a result, modify supplies of organic material in the long-term [Donegan and Seidler 1999, Griffith et al. 2005, Motavalli et al. 2004]. In addition, changes of nutrient resources [Escher et al. 2000, Motavalli et al. 2004, Cortet et al. 2006] can cause changes in the soil food web, which may affect taxa particularly at lower trophic levels (saprophages, microbivores). 3) The soil food web can also be affected by the transfer of toxins across several trophic levels [Hilbeck et al. 1998, Rossi et al. 2007]. This means that taxa in higher trophic levels should be studied simultaneously to gain information about food web structures. 4) Since positive and negative effects were found to be species-dependent in both laboratory and field studies (e.g. in the case of Protozoa, Nematoda, Collembola, Acari, Lumbricidae, Isopoda, Carabidae, Araneae [Xin et al. 2004, Hoss et al. 2011, Donegan et al. 1999, Bitzer et al. 2005, Brooks et al. 2003, Clark et al. 2006, Griffith et al. 2006, Manchini and Lozzia 2002]), it is vital to record more than just cumulative parameters (e.g. total abundance) for whole animal groups. Studies should be performed at species level. 5) GMO studies have shown that the multitude of environmental factors (e.g. soil type, pH, temperature, year, season, region etc.) makes it difficult to demonstrate the effects of GMOs [Pagel-Wieder et al. 2004, Icozand and Stotzky 2008]. ‘These factors contribute to the variability of biological systems and have an impact on the potential disturbance value of the GMO (e.g. degradation or bioavailability of Bt toxins). Proper evaluation of data thus requires extensive reference studies and adapted approaches to statistical evaluation (e.g. at landscape level). 78 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) Animal groups as indicators of functions and services In the literature on soil ecology and soil protection, the term “function” has two meanings: Firstly, it refers to soil functions both in terms of the importance of soil for the ecosystem and for human use. Secondly, it is used to describe the activities and services of soil organ- isms. The list of soil functions in the German Federal Soil Protection Act is an example of the first meaning [BBodSchG 1998]. According to this law, soil is expected to fulfil: 1. “natural” functions a) as a basis for life and a habitat for people, animals, plants and soil organisms, b) as a part of natural systems, especially regarding its water and nutrient cycles, c) as a medium for decomposition, balance and restoration as a result of its filtering, buffering and substance-converting properties, and especially for groundwater protection, 2. functions as an archive of natural and cultural history and 3. functions linked to human activities such as a) a source of raw materials, b) land for settlement and recreation, c) land for use in agricultural and silvicultural use, d) land for other economic and public uses, for transport, and for supply, provision and disposal.” Soil can fulfil many of these functions only with the aid of a multitude of soil or- ganisms, which help maintain nutrient cycles, for example. ‘These interactions become particularly clear in the case of the habitat function, since the role of soil as a habitat for plants, animals and microorganisms is especially emphasized. In biological terms the aforementioned functions (hereafter referred to as “servic- es”) of soil are driven soil organisms (which become functions in some processes). Ta- ble 1 contains a summary of some of these services, processes, relevant soil organisms and the respective measurement parameters [Turbé et al. 2010]. The examples used in this document mostly relate to soil invertebrates. See [VDI 4331 Part 7 in prep.] for more information about the services provided by soil microorganisms. Due to their complexity, most services provided by individual organisms or groups of organisms cannot be directly quantified: for example we would have to measure the po- tential activity of all soil organisms to determine the maintenance of nutrient cycles. Since this is unfeasible, three approaches remain which complement one another to a large ex- tent: (1) direct measurement of clearly definable soil organism services (for selected species and/or entire communities), (2) indirect measurement of such services by determining the structural characteristics of soil organism communities or (3) direct measurement of abiotic soil properties. In the latter two cases the indicator value for individual services is used. This involves assigning to each service a measurement parameter that does not nec- essarily depict the service directly, but serves as an indicator. For example, the abundance of deep-burrowing earthworms can be correlated with the process of litter decomposition as part of the service nutrient recycling. More specifically, changes in the measurement parameters indicate whether or not the respective service can be maintained. Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 79 Table I. Selection of soil organism ecosystem services (MEA 2005) with a description of the organism groups which act as indicators of these services and of suitable monitoring methods [Lavelle et al. 2006]. The functional division used in the table is based on the definition of soil functions in the German Federal Soil Protection Act [BBodSchG 1998]. : Indicator variable / taxo- | Potential measure- Service Process ‘ nomic group ment parameters Soil as part of natural systems, especially due to its water and nutrient cycles Earthworms, Enchytraeus, | Species spectrum Decomposition of organic | Woodlice, Diplopods, and abundance of material Oribatid Mites, Springtails, | relevant soil organ- wood-decaying Fungi ism taxa Nutrient cycling we oe, ._ | Bacterial decomposition (Supporting Service) | Metabolisation of organic . athways Enzyme activities material P y y Plant litter and dung fungi Stimulation of microbial Functional groups s Nematodes f decomposition (channel index) Climate regulation Storage of organic sub- _| Formation of stable humic Core/Cmi org/Cmic (Regulating Service) _ | stances, esp. Carbon substances 8 Fresh water supply Storage of water in the Burrowing and tube-forming | Species spectrum (Provisioning Service) | soil pore system organisms (earthworms) and abundance Soil for agricultural and forestry use Tube and aggregate for- Soil formation sabe Earthworms, Microorgan- Species spectrum mation (development of |. (Supporting Service) ; isms and abundance soil structure) Disease control (i.e. | Direct and indirect Diversity, species ‘ ( ie . Predators: Spiders, Ground peels harmful organisms) _| competition, predation, spectrum and ; ; i: Beetles, Gamasina, Nematodes (Regulating Service) arasitism abundance Selection of relevant animal groups For practical reasons alone, it is clearly impossible to include every animal group oc- curring in an ecosystem in any given monitoring programme. Over 1000 species of invertebrates can be expected only in Germany’s grassy field margins, which represent a relatively homogeneous biotope type. These species are spread across numerous animal groups at different taxonomic levels [Rof’-Nickoll et al. 2004]. Due to the large num- bers involved, it is important to identify which animal groups are relevant to monitor- ing using the criteria listed below [Dunger 1998, Rombke et al. 1997]: ¢ important ecological function in the respective ecosystem; ¢ close association with the respective sub-compartment (i.e. organisms dwelling in the mineral soil or litter layer); e sufficiently large number of species per group to enable differentiation between sites; ¢ good taxonomic or ecological understanding of the relevant group and availability of experts capable of putting this knowledge into practice; e broad distribution (here: in Central Europe); 80 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) ¢ availability of standardised monitoring methods; e potential for routine application (in particular opportunities to simplify deter- mination); ° — sensitivity to anthropogenic stress factors; ¢ — representative of one trophic level (especially microbivors, saprophages and predators); e habitat on or in the soil (epigeic or endogeic); ¢ representatives of a specific size class (micro-, meso- or macrofauna) and thus in- directly associated with a specific exposure pathway (e.g. the smaller the organism, the greater the likelihood of exposure via pore water). The last three criteria specifically address the potential exposure of epi- and en- dogeic soil organisms towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Since not only living or dead GMO material but also other stressors connected with their cultivation may affect soil organisms, a broad spectrum of exposure pathways have to be covered. In addition it has to be checked whether the selected organism group contains key species such as ecosystem engineers (e.g. the anecic earthworm Lum- bricus terrestris [Jones et al. 1994; Lavelle et al. 1997]). Since epigeic organism groups have already been used in nature protection activities (including monitoring programs) Plachter et al. (2002) have recommended the following taxa: Araneae, Carabidae, Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Gastropoda, Isopoda, Opiliones, and Staphylini- dae. In parallel, the suitability endogeic soil invertebrate groups for monitoring pur- poses was studied by Rémbke et al. (1997), using the same criteria as listed above. These authors recommended Collembola, Enchytraeidae, Gamasina, Lumbricidae, Nematoda and Oribatida. The VDI Working Group, using own experiences, added carabid and dipteran larvae to this list. However, it is neither practical nor necessary to use all organism groups listed above when monitoring potential effects of GMOs at a specific site. Therefore, a decision ma- trix has been developed for VDI Guideline 4331 Part 1 which enables the most suitable animal groups to be selected for GMO monitoring on the basis of three criteria (Table 2). First of all, the landuse form of the monitoring site (crop site, grassland, or forest including hedgerow strips) has to be determined. Afterwards, three criteria are used: 1. the practicality of the animal groups (input values: current knowledge, avail- ability of standard methods and handling). 2. the information value an organism group affords for a specific habitat type. The information value is defined as “a measure of the ability to organize a community by ecological groupings and species differentiation in order to indicate habitat conditions and changes” [Plachter et al. 2002]. 3. the functional feeding type. Therefore, various combinations of animal groups are possible, depending on the specific ecological conditions of the monitoring site and the properties of the GMO to be monitored. Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 81 Table 2. Matrix for the selection of the most suitable organism groups for the monitoring of potential effects of GMOs in three different land use forms (crop sites, grassland and forest / hedge). The numbers behind the names of the organism groups refer to their information content (see VDI 4331 Part 1 for further definition): 3 = very high, 2 = high, 1 = high, but only for individual species, 0 = rather low. Garant Crop site Grassland Forest / Hedge Tganism grouP | ored | sapro | mic | pred| sapro|mic| pred | sapro | mic Lente Carabidae ae EI a ea Le Araneae ee ee eee ee eel | go easerpio deems | PG | sat Paty aaa | het ad [ake pra] ‘Do Opiliones 0 1 1 re Staphylinidae f) ik 2 1 2 0 rather good Diplopoda ik 2 2 Isopoda 1 1 2 1 rather bad Chilopoda 0 1 2 Lumbricidae | | 1 | | | 2] | | 2 | Collembola || [3 { | [af | [3] 8% » | Nematoda 22: *|-al e 0 2 b Oribatida 1 1 2. 2 3 3__| rather good Z | Gamasina 0 3 i Enchytraeidae 2 2 3 3 3 3 rather bad Dipltera larvae 0 0 0 Coleopreralavae{ 0 [| 0 | [o[o|[ [2|2/[ | The following rules have to be obeyed regarding the outcome of the selection process: 1. Four taxa have to be selected out of those listed in Table 2. 2. All three trophic levels have to be represented. 3. For each biotope type, at least two taxa must have a high information value. 4. Two epigeic and two endogeic taxa have to be selected. In order to secure a high efficiency and sensitivity of the monitoring, the following information has to be considered when selecting the organism groups: - In case it is known that the GMO (or one of its components, e.g. a Cry-protein) has a specific efficacy for one specific taxonomic group, this group must be included. - In case one trophic level is specifically exposed towards one specific taxonomic group, this group must be included. - At least two of the selected groups should be easy to handle (i.e. show a high practicality). Details of the sampling design or the statistical evaluation of the monitoring re- sults go beyond the scope of this paper (see the VDI Guideline 4331 Part 1). In the guideline there are also case studies presented, focusing on the selection process as de- scribed above. In addition, the use of the reference system is described more in detail. 82 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) Conclusion Soil, just like water and air, is vital for life. Therefore it is important to monitor threats to soil structures, species communities, functions and services. Soil organisms provide wide-ranging opportunities for monitoring the effects of GMO cultivation. They are extremely species rich, sensitive to changes in their environment, involved in global material cycles and can be monitored using standard methods. The huge diversity of soil organism groups facilitates the establishment of an exceptionally sensitive monitor- ing system. In the future, modern molecular methods could help to achieve monitor- ing at the species level [Holterman et al. 2008; Pérez-Losada et al. 2012]. Furthermore, reference systems based on the occurrence and diversity of soil invertebrate communi- ties have been proposed [Beylich and Graefe 2009; Cluzeau et al. 2012; Roembke et al. 2012; Rutgers et al. 2008]. However, there is still room for improvement; mainly due to a lack of data for specific land use types (i.e. grassland and forests have been studied more intensively than agricultural land. This approach of specifying a standardised monitoring framework for the selection of animal groups provides a suitable basis for the identification of potential side-effects of GMOs in the field. Standardized methods ensure that studies are comparable and that the data pool for deriving reference values continuously expands. References Barth N, Brandtner W, Cordsen E, Dann T; Emmerich K-H, Feldhaus D, Kleefisch B, Schil- ling B, Utermann J (2000) Boden-Dauerbeobachtung — Einrichtung und Betrieb von Boden-Dauerbeobachtungsflachen. In: Rosenkranz D, Bachmann G, Konig W, Einsele G (Hrsg) Bodenschutz. Kennziffer 9152, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. BodSch BG (1998) Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz vom 17. Marz 1998 (BGBI. I S. 502): Ge- setz zum Schutz vor schadlichen Bodenveranderungen und zur Sanierung von Altlasten (Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz - BBodSchG). Beylich A, Graefe U (2009) Investigations of annelids at soil monitoring sites in Northern Germany: reference ranges and time-series data. Soil Organisms 81: 175-196. Bispo A, Cluzeau D, Creamer R, Dombos M, Graefe U, Krogh PH, Sousa JP, Peres G, Rutgers M, Winding A, Rombke J (2009) Indicators for Monitoring Soil Biodiversity. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5: 717—719. doi: 10.1897/IEAM-2009-064. 1 Bitzer RJ, Rice M E, Pilcher CD, Pilcher CL, Lam W-K F (2005) Biodiversity and Community Structure of Epedaphic and Euedaphic Springtails (Collembola) in Transgenic Rootworm Bt Corn. Environmental Entomology 34: 1346-1376. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X(2005)0 34[1346:BACSOE]2.0.CO;2 Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Clark SJ, Dewar AM, Firbank LG, Perry JN, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Woiwood IP, Birchall C, Skellern MP., Walker JH, Baker P, Bell D, Browne EL, Dewar AJG, Fairfax CM, Garner BH, Haylock LA, Horne SL, Hulmes SE, Mason NS, Norton LR, Nuttal P, Randle Z, Rossall MJ, Sands RJN, Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 83 Singer EJ, Walker MJ (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modi- fied herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 358: 1847-1862. Clark BW, Prihoda KR, Coats JR (2006) Subacute Effects of Transgenic CrylAb Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Litter on the Isopods Trachelipus rathkii and Armadillidium nasatum. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25: 2653-2661. doi: 10.1897/05-471R.1 Cluzeau D, Guernion M, Chaussod R, Martin-Laurent F, Villenave C, Cortet J, Ruiz-Cama- cho N, Pernin C, Mateille T, Philippot L, Bellido A, Rougé L, Arrouays D, Bispo A, Pérés G (2012) Integration of biodiversity in soil quality monitoring: Baselines for microbial and soil fauna parameters for different land-use types. European Journal of Soil Biology 49: 63-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.11.003 Cortet J, Andersen J, Caul S, Griffith B, Joffre R, Lacroix B, Sausse C, Thompson J, Krogh PH (2006) Decomposition processes under Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) maize: Results of a multi-site experiment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38: 195-199. doi: 10.1016/j.soil- bio.2005.04.025 Donegan KK, Seidler RJ (1999) Effects of Transgenic Plants on Soil and Plant Microorgan- isms. Recent Research Development in Microbiology 3: 415-424. Dunger W (1998) Die Bindung zwischen Bodenorganismen und Boden und die biologische Beurteilung von Boden. Bodenschutz 2: 62-68. EC (2001) Richtlinie 2001/18/EG des Europaischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Marz 2001 tiber die absichtliche Freisetzung genetisch veranderter Organismen in die Umwelt und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 90/220/EWG des Rates. ABI. EG Nr. L 106 vom 17. April 2001, 1-39. EC (2002) Entscheidung des Rates vom 3. Oktober 2002 iiber Leitlinien zur Erganzung des Anhangs VII der Richtlinie 2001/18/EG des Europaischen Parlamentes und des Rates iiber die absichtliche Freisetzung genetisch verinderter Organismen in die Umwelt und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 90/220/EWG des Rates. ABI. EG Nr. L 280/27 vom 3. Oktober 2002, 27-36. Escher N, Kach B, Nentwig W (2000) Decomposition of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis maize by microorganisms and woodlice Porcellio scaber (Crustacea: Isopoda). Basic and Applied Ecology 1: 161-169. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00024 GenTG (2010) Gentechnikgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 16. Dezember 1993 (BGBI. I S. 2066), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 9. Dezember 2010 (BGBI. IS. 1934) geandert worden ist. Griffith BS, Caul S, Thompson J, Birch ANE, Scrimgeour C, Andersen MN, Cortet J, Mes- séan A, Sausse C, Lacroix B, Krogh PH (2005) A comparison of soil microbial community structure, protozoa and nematodes in field plots of conventional and genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis CrylAb toxin. Plant and Soil 275: 135-146. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-1093-2 Griffith BS, Caul S, Thompson J, Birch ANE, Scrimgeour C, Cortet J, Foggo A, Hackett CA, Krogh PH (2006) Soil Microbial and Faunal Community Responses to Bt Maize and Insecticide in Two Soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 734-741. doi: 10.2134/ jeq2005.0344 84 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) Heissenberger A, Traxler A, Dolezel M, Pascher K, Kuffner M, Miklau M, Gaugitsch H, Kasal V, Loos S (2003) Durchftthrung von Untersuchungen zu einem dkologischen Mo- nitoring von gentechnisch veranderten Organismen. Im Auftrag des Osterreichischen Bundesministeriums ftir soziale Sicherheit und Generationen, Sektion VH, Forschungs- bericht 4/03, 310 pp. Hilbeck A, Baumgartner M, Fried PM, Bilger F (1998) Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuring- iensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 27: 480-487. Holterman M, Rybarczyk K, Van den Elsen S, Van Megen H, Mooyman P, Santiago RP, Bongers T, Bakker J, Helder J (2008) A ribosomal DNA-based framework for the detec- tion and quantification of stress-sensitive nematode families in terrestrial habitats. Molecu- lar Ecology Resources 8: 23-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01963.x Honemann L, Nentwig W (2009) Are survival and reproduction of Enchytraeus albidus (An- nelida: Enchytraeidae) at risk by feeding on Bt-maize litter? European Journal of Soil Biol- ogy 45: 351-355. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2009.03.001 Hoss S, Arndt M, Baumgarte S, Tebbe C, Nguyen-Thu H, Jehle J (2008) Effects of transgenic corn and CrylAb protein on the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 70: 334-340. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.10.017 Hoss S, Nguyen-Thu H, Menzel, R, Pagel-Wieder S, Miethling-Graff R, Tebbe CC, Jehle J, Traunspurger W (2011) Assessing the risk posed to free-living soil nematodes by a ge- netically modified maize expressing the insecticidal Cry3Bb1 protein. Science of the Total Environment 409: 2674-2684. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.041 Icoz I, Stotzky G (2008) Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in root exudates and biomass of transgenic corn does not persist in soil. Transgenic Research 17: 609-620. doi: 10.1007/s11248-007-9133-8 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 1: Hand-sorting and formalin extraction of earthworms. ISO 23611-1: Geneva, Switzerland. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 2: Sampling and extraction of microarthropods (Collembola and Aca- rina). ISO 23611-2. Geneva, Switzerland. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2007a) Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 3: Sampling and soil extraction of enchytraeids. ISO 23611-3. Geneva, Switzerland. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2007b) Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 4: Sampling, extraction and identification of free-living stages of nema- todes. ISO 23611-4. Geneva, Switzerland. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2010a) Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 5: Sampling and extraction of soil macro-invertebrates. ISO 23611-5. Geneva, Switzerland. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2010b) Draft. Soil quality - Sampling of soil invertebrates Part 6: Guidance for the design of sampling programmes with soil invertebrates. ISO 23611-6. Geneva, Switzerland. Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 85 Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373- 386. doi: 10.2307/3545850 Kowarik I, Heink U, Bartz R (2006) »Okologische Schaden“ in Folge der Ausbringung gen- technisch veranderter Organismen im Freiland - Entwicklung einer Begriffsdefinition und eines Konzeptes zur Operationalisierung. http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/ skript166.pdf (Stand:03.2011) Lang A (2007) Bedarf an standardisierten Erhebungsmethoden fiir ein GVO-Monitoring. Gu- tachten im Auftrag des Bundesamts ftir Naturschutz. 29 pp. Lavelle P, Bignell D, Lepage M (1997) Soil function in a changing world: the role of inverte- brate ecosystem engineers. European Journal of Soil Biology 33: 159-193. Lavelle P, Decaéns T, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi J-P (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystems services. European Journal of Soil Biology 42: 3-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002 Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T (2009) Weight-of-evidence evalua- tion in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci- ence of the Total Environment 407: 5199-5205. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.004 Manchini B, Lozzia G (2002) First investigations into the effects of Bt corn crop on Nemato- fauna. Bolletino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura 34: 85-96. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Syn- thesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Motavalli PP, Kremer RJ, Fang M, Means NE (2004) Impact of Genetically Modified Crops and Their Management on Soil Microbially Mediated Plant Nutrient Transformations. Journal of Environmental Quality 33: 816-824. doi: 10.2134/jeq2004.0816 Nobel W, Beismann H, Franzaring J, Kostka-Rick R, Wagner G, Erhardt W (2005) Standardi- sierte biologische Messverfahren zur Ermittlung und Bewertung der Wirkung von Luftver- unreinigungen auf Pflanzen (Bioindikation) in Deutschland. Gefahrstoffe — Reinhaltung der Luft 65: 478-484. Pagel-Wieder S, Gessler F, Niemeyer J, Schroder D (2004) Adsorption of the Bacillus thuring- iensis toxin (CrylAb) on Na-montmorillonite and on the clay fractions of different soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167: 184-188. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200321312 Pérez-Losada M, Bloch R, Breinholt J, Pfenninger M, Dominguez J (2012) Taxonomic assess- ment of Lumbricidae (Oligochaeta) earthworm genera using DNA barcodes. European Journal of Soil Biology 48: 41—47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.10.003 Plachter H, Bernotat D, Miissner R, Riecken U (2002) Entwicklung und Festlegung von Methoden- standards im Naturschutz. Schriftenreihe ftir Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 70: 566 pp. Potthast T (2004) Okologische Schaden, - eine Synopse begrifflicher, methodologischer und ethischer Aspekte. In: T. Potthast (Hrsg.) Theorie in der Okologie Band 10. Frankfurt. Rémbke J, Beck L, Forster B, Friind H-C, Horak F, Ruf A, Rosciczewski K, Scheurig M, Woas S (1997) Boden als Lebensraum ftir Bodenorganismen und die bodenbiologische Standortklassifikation. Eine Literaturstudie. Texte und Berichte zum Bodenschiitz 4/97. Landesanstalt fir Umweltschutz Baden-Wiirttemberg, Karlsruhe, 390 pp. Rémbke J, Breure AM (Eds) (2005) Ecological soil quality - Classification and assessment. Eco- toxicology and Environmental Safety 62: 185-308. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2005.03.022 86 Andrea Ruf et al. / BioRisk 8: 73-87 (2013) Rombke J, Jansch S, Rof$-Nickoll M, Toschki A, Héfer H, Horak F, Russell D, Burkhardt U, Schmitt H (2012) Erfassung und Analyse des Bodenzustands im Hinblick auf die Umset- zung und Weiterentwicklung der Nationalen Biodiversitatsstrategie. Texte Nr. 33/2012. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Rofslau, 386 S. Rossi L, Constantini ML, Brilli M (2007) Does stable isotope analysis separate transgenic and traditional corn (Zea mays L.) detritus and their consumers? Applied Soil Ecology 35: 449-453. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.09.001 Rofs-Nickoll M, Fiirste A, Mause R, Ottermanns R, TheifSen B, Toschki A, Ratte H-T, Lenn- artz G, Smolis M, Schafer S (2004) Die Arthropodenfauna von Nichtzielflachen und die Konsequenzen fiir die Bewertung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln auf den terrestrischen Be- reich des Naturhaushalts. UBA-Texte 10/04, 148 pp. Rutgers M, Mulder C, Schouten AJ, Bloem J, Bogte JJ, Breure AM, Brussaard L, De Goede RGM, Faber JH, Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM, Keidel H, Korthals GW, Smeding FW, Ter Berg C, Van Eekeren N (2008) Soil ecosystem profiling in the Netherlands with with ten references for biological soil quality, RIVM-Report 607604009, 85 pp. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01163.x Rutgers M, Schouten AJ, Bloem J, Van Eekeren N, De Goede RGM, Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM, Van der Wal A, Mulder C, Brussaard L, Breure AM (2009) Biological measurements in a nationwide soil monitoring network. European Journal of Soil Science 60: 820-832. Saxena B, Flores S, Stotzky G (2002) Bt toxin is released in root exudates from 12 transgenic corn hybrids representing three transformation events. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 133-137. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00161-4 Schaffer A, van den Brink PJ, Heimbach F, Hoy SP, de Jong FMW, Roémbke J, Rofs-Nickoll M, Sousa JP (2010) Guidance from the SETAC Europe Workshop: Semi-field Methods for the Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides in Soil (PERAS). CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA, 105 pp. doi: 10.1201/9781439828595 Toschki A (2008) Eignung unterschiedlicher Monitoring-Methoden als Grundlage zum Risk Assessment ftir Agrarsysteme am Beispiel einer bioz6nologischen Reihenuntersuchung und einer Einzelfallstudie. Dissertation RWTH Aachen, 158 pp. Turbé A, De Toni A, Benito P, Lavelle P, Ruiz N, Van der Putten W, Labouze E, Mudgal S (2010) Soil biodiversity : functions, threats, and tools for policy makers. BioIntelligence Service, IRD, and NIOO, Report for European Commission (DG Environment), Brus- sels, Belgium. 250 pp. UBA (Umweltbundesamt) (2008) Der ,,gute dkologische Zustand“ naturnaher terrestrischer Okosysteme —ein Indikator fiir Biodiversitat? Tagungsband zum Workshop in Dessau http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-1/3508.pdf (Stand: 03.2011) UPB (Umweltprobenbank des Bundes) (1996) Verfahrensrichtlinien fir Probenahme, Trans- port, Lagerung und chemische Charakterisierung von Umwelt- und Human-Organpro- ben. Umweltprobenbank des Bundes, Jahresbericht 1992/93. UBA-Texte 8/96. Berlin. VDI 4330 Partl (2006) Beobachtungen dkologischer Wirkungen gentechnisch veranderter Orga- nismen - Gentechnisch veranderte Pflanzen - Grundlagen und Strategien. Beuth Verlag Berlin. VDI 4331 Part 1 (in prep) Monitoring der Wirkungen gentechnisch veranderter Orga-nismen (GVO) - Wirkungen auf Bodenorganismen. In preparation. Soil organisms as an essential element of a monitoring plan to identify the effects of GMO... 87 VDI 4331 Part 7 (in prep) Monitoring der Wirkungen gentechnisch veranderter Organismen (GVO) - Verfahren zur Extraktion von Nukleinsduren aus Boden zur Analyse von mikro- biellen Gemeinschaften und Nachweis transgener DNA - Qualitatsanforderungen und Anwendungsbeispiele. In preparation. Vercesi ML, Krogh PH, Holmstrup M (2006) Can Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn residues and Bt-corn plants affect life-history traits in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa? Applied Soil Ecology 32: 180-187. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.002 Xin K, Xin Z, ZuHua H, BiZeng M (2004) Effects of chitinase and glucanase transgenic rice on three species of soil Collembola and one species of Annelida. Zoological Research 25: 273-280. Ziighart W, Breckling B (2003a) Konzeptionelle Entwicklung eines Monitoring von Umwelt- wirkungen transgener Kulturpflanzen Teil 1. UBA Text, Berlin. Ziighart W, Breckling B (2003b) Konzeptionelle Entwicklung eines Monitoring von Umwelt- wirkungen transgener Kulturpflanzen Teil 2. UBA Text, Berlin. Zurbriigg C, Nentwig W (2009) Ingestion and excretion of two transgenic Bt corn varieties by slugs. Transgenic Research 18: 215-225. doi: 10.1007/s11248-008-9208-1 Zwahlen C, Hilbeck A, Howald R, Nentwig W (2003) Effects of transgenic Bt corn litter on the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. F.W., Ter Berg, C. & Van Eekeren, N. (2008): Soil ecosystem profiling in the Netherlands with 12: 1077-1086.