Ecological risk assessment in the context of global climate change

Abstract

Changes to sources, stressors, habitats, and geographic ranges; toxicological effects; end points; and uncertainty estimation require significant changes in the implementation of ecological risk assessment (ERA). Because of the lack of analog systems and circumstances in historically studied sites, there is a likelihood of type III error. As a first step, the authors propose a decision key to aid managers and risk assessors in determining when and to what extent climate change should be incorporated. Next, when global climate change is an important factor, the authors recommend seven critical changes to ERA. First, develop conceptual cause–effect diagrams that consider relevant management decisions as well as appropriate spatial and temporal scales to include both direct and indirect effects of climate change and the stressor of management interest. Second, develop assessment end points that are expressed as ecosystem services. Third, evaluate multiple stressors and nonlinear responses—include the chemicals and the stressors related to climate change. Fourth, estimate how climate change will affect or modify management options as the impacts become manifest. Fifth, consider the direction and rate of change relative to management objectives, recognizing that both positive and negative outcomes can occur. Sixth, determine the major drivers of uncertainty, estimating and bounding stochastic uncertainty spatially, temporally, and progressively. Seventh, plan for adaptive management to account for changing environmental conditions and consequent changes to ecosystem services. Good communication is essential for making risk-related information understandable and useful for managers and stakeholders to implement a successful risk-assessment and decision-making process. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:79–92. © 2012 SETAC

The deal with diel: Temperature fluctuations, asymmetrical warming, and ubiquitous metals contaminants

“…Thus, researchers are raising the concern that organisms living in chronically polluted waters might be at greater risk from global warming if they cannot rally the additional energy needed to cope with compounding thermal stress Sokolova and Lannig, 2008;Hooper et al, 2013). Whether either the TICS or CITS hypothesis holds sway, cumulative stressors that increase risk in general (Landis et al, 2013) can divert energy resources from growth and reproduction; effects that can potentially cascade to impacts on populations and communities (Moe et al, 2013).…”

Impact of climate change and population growth on a risk assessment for endocrine disruption in fish due to steroid estrogens in England and Wales

“…Landis et al (2013) recently published a set of recommendations for conducting ecological risk assessment in the context of climate change, and stressed the need to determine to what extent climate change should be incorporated. The authors also recommend the identification of the major drivers of uncertainty, and their quantification both spatially and temporally using methods such as the Monte-Carlo method.…”

Impact of extreme metal contamination at the supra-individual level in a contaminated bay ecosystem

“…A meaningful sediment quality assessment needs to incorporate multiple lines of evidence and to use appropriate interpretative tools dealing with different types of data (Landis et al, 2013;Chapman and Maher, 2014). Because benthic assemblages receive the most comprehensive exposure to the overall environment involved, they become one of the most effective indicators of environmental degradation in aquatic ecosystems (Chapman and Anderson, 2005;Chapman, 2007aChapman, , 2007bMcPherson et al, 2008;Wu et al, 2014aWu et al, , 2014b.…”