# Identifying a science‐based methodology for generating refined maps that identify where pesticides overlap with endangered/threatened species habitat

## TL;DR

This paper proposes a science-based method to map pesticide use restrictions that protect endangered species without unnecessarily limiting farming.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a novel spatial methodology to align pesticide restrictions with actual endangered species habitats, improving both conservation and agricultural efficiency.

## Key findings

- County-wide restrictions on herbicide use in Georgia impacted over 366,000 hectares, but less than 1% of this area actually overlapped with suitable salamander habitat.
- Science-based mapping can limit pesticide restrictions to only areas where endangered species are actually present, reducing unnecessary agricultural limitations.
- The proposed methodology can be applied nationwide to balance species protection with sustainable farming practices.

## Abstract

To manage pests, including problematic weeds, farmers rely on an integrated pest management approach that encourages the safe and effective use of pesticides. As US federal regulators place restrictions on pesticides as a means of protecting endangered and threatened (known collectively as listed) species, it is paramount these decisions are based on empirical evidence. During 2022, restrictions placed on the Enlist Duo (glyphosate + 2,4‐D choline) herbicide to protect listed species lacked scientific merit. As a means of protecting the reticulated or frosted flatwoods salamander, the ability to use the herbicide was lost to many farmers across the country, including those in 11 Georgia counties. County‐wide restrictions in Georgia, based on the historical presence of these salamanders, prevented its use on over 366,000 ha (904,000 acres) of corn, cotton, and soybean. Using spatial datasets to identify specific salamander habitat and where it overlapped with potential pesticide applications, results documented that less than 1% of impacted hectares should even be included in the restrictions; over 99% of the restricted farmland did not provide suitable habitat features needed for the species’ survival. This research confirms the importance of utilizing a science‐based mapping methodology for future pesticide restrictions being implemented to protect listed species.

Pesticide use restrictions lacking scientific merit limit a farmer's ability to protect crops and meet world food supply demands.Restrictions are being placed on pesticides to protect listed species; it is paramount they are a result of unbiased sound science.Understanding where pesticide applications and sensitive species may intersect is critical to protecting both the farm and wildlife.We propose methodology that bases pesticide restrictions on locations of suitable habitat rather than on historical presence.This methodology can be implemented as a nationwide approach, fostering species protection and maintaining practical pesticide use.

Pesticide use restrictions lacking scientific merit limit a farmer's ability to protect crops and meet world food supply demands.

Restrictions are being placed on pesticides to protect listed species; it is paramount they are a result of unbiased sound science.

Understanding where pesticide applications and sensitive species may intersect is critical to protecting both the farm and wildlife.

We propose methodology that bases pesticide restrictions on locations of suitable habitat rather than on historical presence.

This methodology can be implemented as a nationwide approach, fostering species protection and maintaining practical pesticide use.

The use of pesticides to protect crops from pests is a critical part of ensuring agricultural sustainability and stable food supplies worldwide. As federal regulations are placed on pesticides as a means of protecting endangered and threatened species, it is critical that these decisions are science‐based. Restrictions placed on Enlist Duo (2,4‐D choline + glyphosate) during 2022 eliminated use on corn, cotton, and soybeans in 11 Georgia counties, impacting over 366,000 ha. To better understand the impact of these restrictions, which were based on the historical presence of two sensitive species (frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders), spatial datasets were utilized to create maps that identified specific habitat parameters and their interactions with pesticide use sites. Results indicate that a science‐based mapping methodology can limit pesticide use restrictions to exactly where listed species are located, conserving species and habitat, while enabling production agriculture to continue meeting the demands of increasing populations.