The value of models that link organism-level impacts to the responses of a population in ecological risk assessments (ERAs) has been demonstrated extensively over the past few decades. There is little debate about the utility of these models to translate multiple organism-level endpoints into a holistic interpretation of effect to the population; however, there continues to be a struggle for actual application of these models as a common practice in ERA. Although general frameworks for developing models for ERA have been proposed, there is limited guidance on when models should be used, in what form, and how to interpret model output to inform the risk manager's decision. We propose a framework for developing and applying population models in regulatory decision making that focuses on trade-offs of generality, realism, and precision for both ERAs and models. We approach the framework development from the perspective of regulators aimed at defining the needs of specific models commensurate with the assessment objective. We explore why models are not widely used by comparing their requirements and limitations with the needs of regulators. Using a series of case studies under specific regulatory frameworks, we classify ERA objectives by trade-offs of generality, realism, and precision and demonstrate how the output of population models developed with these same trade-offs informs the ERA objective. We examine attributes for both assessments and models that aid in the discussion of these trade-offs. The proposed framework will assist risk assessors and managers to identify models of appropriate complexity and to understand the utility and limitations of a model's output and associated uncertainty in the context of their assessment goals. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:369-380. Published 2017. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Abstract-Protection of ecosystem services is increasingly emphasized as a risk-assessment goal, but there are wide gaps between current ecological risk-assessment endpoints and potential effects on services provided by ecosystems. The authors present a framework that links common ecotoxicological endpoints to chemical impacts on populations and communities and the ecosystem services that they provide. This framework builds on considerable advances in mechanistic effects models designed to span multiple levels of biological organization and account for various types of biological interactions and feedbacks. For illustration, the authors introduce 2 case studies that employ well-developed and validated mechanistic effects models: the inSTREAM individual-based model for fish populations and the AQUATOX ecosystem model. They also show how dynamic energy budget theory can provide a common currency for interpreting organism-level toxicity. They suggest that a framework based on mechanistic models that predict impacts on ecosystem services resulting from chemical exposure, combined with economic valuation, can provide a useful approach for informing environmental management. The authors highlight the potential benefits of using this framework as well as the challenges that will need to be addressed in future work. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:845-859. # 2017 SETAC Keywords-Ecological production function; Ecological risk assessment; Ecosystem service; Environmental management; Mechanistic effects model Challenges for Ecological Risk Assessment and ManagementThe primary goal of ecological risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals is to provide defensible science-based support for environmental management decisions. This involves making explicit connections between impacts on the benefits derived by people from ecosystems (so-called ecosystem services [1]) and the costs of managing the causes of those impacts. At the core of this approach is the need for relevant chemical exposure-response relationships. However, current ERA approaches often fall short in these regards because methods In This Issue: ET&C FOCUSFocus articles are part of a regular series intended to sharpen understanding of current and emerging topics of interest to the scientific community. for estimating and integrating exposure and effects are often based on overly simplistic assumptions [2,3]. For example, measures of organism-level toxicity (e.g., 50% effect concentrations) are used as indicators of population-level impacts of chemicals. A primary concern is that the kinds of information collected to support ERAs are far removed from the kinds of ecological entities (e.g., species or habitats) that are the targets of protection, which themselves are often only vaguely defined in legislation (e.g., European pesticides legislation refers to "no unacceptable effects on the environment"). In practice, protection goals for ecological systems are (implicitly or explicitly) often at the population, community, or ecosystem level (e.g., persistence or abundance of a p...
Insecticide usage in the United States is ubiquitous in urban, suburban, and rural environments. There is accumulating evidence that insecticides adversely affect non-target wildlife species, including birds, causing mortality, reproductive impairment, and indirect effects through loss of prey base, and the type and magnitude of such effects differs by chemical class, or mode of action. In evaluating data for an insecticide registration application and for registration review, scientists at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) assess the fate of the insecticide and the risk the insecticide poses to the environment and non-target wildlife. Current USEPA risk assessments for pesticides generally rely on endpoints from laboratory based toxicity studies focused on groups of individuals and do not directly assess population-level endpoints. In this paper, we present a mechanistic model, which allows risk assessors to estimate the effects of insecticide exposure on the survival and seasonal productivity of birds known to forage in agricultural fields during their breeding season. This model relies on individual-based toxicity data and translates effects into endpoints meaningful at the population level (i.e., magnitude of mortality and reproductive impairment). The model was created from two existing USEPA avian risk assessment models, the Terrestrial Investigation Model (TIM v.3.0) and the Markov Chain Nest Productivity model (MCnest). The integrated TIM/MCnest model was used to assess the relative risk of 12 insecticides applied via aerial spray to control corn pests on a suite of 31 avian species known to forage in cornfields in agroecosystems of the Midwest, USA. We found extensive differences in risk to birds among insecticides, with chlorpyrifos and malathion (organophosphates) generally posing the greatest risk, and bifenthrin and λ-cyhalothrin (pyrethroids) posing the least risk. Comparative sensitivity analysis across the 31 species showed that ecological trait parameters related to the timing of breeding and reproductive output per nest attempt offered the greatest explanatory power for predicting the magnitude of risk. An important advantage of TIM/MCnest is that it allows risk assessors to rationally combine both acute (lethal) and chronic (reproductive) effects into a single unified measure of risk.
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.