CropLife Europe Crop Development Database: An open-source, pan-European, harmonized crop development database for use in regulatory pesticide exposure modeling and risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is a regulatory need for crop development dates to assess current default values used within chemical exposure assessments as well as to justify refinements within risk assessments. However, a readily available pan-European crop phenology database covering key FOrum for the Co-ordination of pesticide fate models and their USe (FOCUS) crops and scenarios to meet this need is not currently available. Therefore, we describe the development of a harmonized, pan-European, CropLife Europe Crop Development Database (C2D2), that is fully aligned with this regulatory requirement utilizing efficacy trials data generated for regulatory submissions when registering plant protection products under Regulation (EU)1107/2009. Evaluation of C2D2 against an independent data set showed good agreement for equivalent time periods, crop growth stages, and geographical regions. We illustrate how this database can be used to evaluate existing default crop development dates mandated by regulatory agencies for use within exposure assessments. Despite the large data set compiled and the geographical coverage of C2D2, not all FOCUSsw/gw scenarios have sufficient data to facilitate comparison, with less significant scenarios, like FOCUSgw Porto, being underrepresented. For those scenarios with sufficient data, clear differences between C2D2 and crop development dates assumed in the FOCUS modeling framework (using the AppDate tool) are often indicated over many growth stages, suggesting that amendment of the existing representation of crop development within the risk assessment process may be required. C2D2 is freely available under a Creative Commons license to facilitate innovation in exposure science to allow for more accurate and realistic risk assessment leading to enhanced crop and environmental protection. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1060–1074. © 2023 CropLife Europe (Corteva Agriscience) and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points A freely available, harmonized, pan-European crop development database (CropLife Europe Crop Development Database [C2D2]) has been developed by CropLife Europe for use in regulatory chemical exposure assessments by collating and harmonizing efficacy trials data generated for regulatory submissions when registering plant protection products. C2D2 comprises a wide range of crops (combinable, root, vegetable, top fruit, soft fruit), spans two decades (2000–2020), and covers 30 countries facilitating comparison with current regulatory scenarios, which suggests that amendment of the existing representation of crop development may be required. Evaluation of C2D2 against an independent data set from Germany for equivalent time periods and crop growth stages showed good agreement, promoting its use in exposure science innovation to allow for more accurate and realistic risk assessment leading to enhanced crop and environmental protection. C2D2 holds significant opportunities for future development of crop models to improve estimates and timing of chemical exposure, not only for use in chemical fate and transport models but also for nontarget organism, for example, pollinators, effect, and risk assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".