The assimilation of population models into ecological risk assessment (ERA) has been hindered by their range of complexity, uncertainty, resource investment, and data availability. Likewise, ensuring that the models address risk assessment objectives has been challenging. Recent research efforts have begun to tackle these challenges by creating an integrated modeling framework and decision guide to aid the development of population models with respect to ERA objectives and data availability. In the framework, the trade‐offs associated with the generality, realism, and precision of an assessment are used to guide the development of a population model commensurate with the protection goal. The decision guide provides risk assessors with a stepwise process to assist them in developing a conceptual model that is appropriate for the assessment objective and available data. We have merged the decision guide and modeling framework into a comprehensive approach, Population modeling Guidance, Use, Interpretation, and Development for Ecological risk assessment (Pop‐GUIDE), for the development of population models for ERA that is applicable across regulatory statutes and assessment objectives. In Phase 1 of Pop‐GUIDE, assessors are guided through the trade‐offs of ERA generality, realism, and precision, which are translated into model objectives. In Phase 2, available data are assimilated and characterized as general, realistic, and/or precise. Phase 3 provides a series of dichotomous questions to guide development of a conceptual model that matches the complexity and uncertainty appropriate for the assessment that is in concordance with the available data. This phase guides model developers and users to ensure consistency and transparency of the modeling process. We introduce Pop‐GUIDE as the most comprehensive guidance for population model development provided to date and demonstrate its use through case studies using fish as an example taxon and the US Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Endangered Species Act as example regulatory statutes. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:767–784. © 2020 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
We demonstrate how mechanistic modeling can be used to predict whether and how biological responses to chemicals at (sub)organismal levels in model species (i.e., what we typically measure) translate into impacts on ecosystem service delivery (i.e., what we care about). We consider a hypothetical case study of two species of trout, brown trout (Salmo trutta; BT) and greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias; GCT). These hypothetical populations live in a high-altitude river system and are exposed to human-derived estrogen (17α‑ethinyl estradiol, EE2), which is the bioactive estrogen in many contraceptives. We use the individual-based model inSTREAM to explore how seasonally varying concentrations of EE2 could influence male spawning and sperm quality. Resulting impacts on trout recruitment and the consequences of such for anglers and for the continued viability of populations of GCT (the state fish of Colorado) are explored. inSTREAM incorporates seasonally varying river flow and temperature, fishing pressure, the influence of EE2 on species-specific demography, and inter-specific competition. The model facilitates quantitative exploration of the relative importance of endocrine disruption and inter-species competition on trout population dynamics. Simulations predicted constant EE2 loading to have more impacts on GCT than BT. However, increasing removal of BT by anglers can enhance the persistence of GCT and offset some of the negative effects of EE2. We demonstrate how models that quantitatively link impacts of chemicals and other stressors on individual survival, growth, and reproduction to consequences for populations and ecosystem service delivery, can be coupled with ecosystem service valuation. The approach facilitates interpretation of toxicity data in an ecological context and gives beneficiaries of ecosystem services a more explicit role in management decisions. Although challenges remain, this type of approach may be particularly helpful for site-specific risk assessments and those in which tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services need to be considered.
Population models can provide valuable tools for ecological risk assessment (ERA). A growing amount of work on model development and documentation is now available to guide modelers and risk assessors to address different ERA questions. However, there remain misconceptions about population models for ERA, and communication between regulators and modelers can still be hindered by a lack of clarity in the underlying formalism, implementation, and complexity of different model types. In particular, there is confusion about differences among types of models and the implications of including or ignoring interactions of organisms with each other and their environment. In this review, we provide an overview of the key features represented in population models of relevance for ERA, which include density dependence, spatial heterogeneity, external drivers, stochasticity, life‐history traits, behavior, energetics, and how exposure and effects are integrated in the models. We differentiate 3 broadly defined population model types (unstructured, structured, and agent‐based) and explain how they can represent these key features. Depending on the ERA context, some model features will be more important than others, and this can inform model type choice, how features are implemented, and possibly the collection of additional data. We show that nearly all features can be included irrespective of formalization, but some features are more or less easily incorporated in certain model types. We also analyze how the key features have been used in published population models implemented as unstructured, structured, and agent‐based models. The overall aim of this review is to increase confidence and understanding by model users and evaluators when considering the potential and adequacy of population models for use in ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:521–540. © 2020 SETAC
Several racial and ethnic identities are widely understood to be under-represented within academia, however, actual quantification of this under-representation is surprisingly limited. Challenges include data availability, demographic inertia and identifying comparison points. We use de-aggregated data from the U.S. National Science Foundation to construct a null model of ethnic and racial representation in one of the world’s largest academic communities. Making comparisons between our model and actual representation in academia allows us to measure the effects of retention (while controlling for recruitment) at different academic stages. We find that, regardless of recruitment, failed retention contributes to mis-representation across academia and that the stages responsible for the largest disparities differ by race and ethnicity: for Black and Hispanic scholars this occurs at the transition from graduate student to postdoctoral researcher whereas for Native American/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander scholars this occurs at transitions to and within faculty stages. Even for Asian and Asian-Americans, often perceived as well represented, circumstances are complex and depend on choice of baseline. Our findings demonstrate that while recruitment continues to be important, retention is also a pervasive barrier to proportional representation. Therefore, strategies to reduce mis-representation in academia must address retention. Although our model does not directly suggest specific strategies, our framework could be used to project how representation in academia might change in the long-term under different scenarios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.