Methods for and approaches to evaluating susceptibility of ecological systems to hazardous chemicals.

Abstract

Differences in genetic susceptibility to hazardous chemicals affect individuals of both human and nonhuman populations. In both cases, differences in response to chemicals or general ill health result as a function of these differences in genetic susceptibility. However, ecological systems are a compilation of hundreds or even thousands of different species, resulting in structural and functional characteristics that are themselves affected by differences in susceptibility. Although individual and population differences in susceptibility to hazardous chemicals underlie effects at the community and the ecosystem level, they do not account for all differences. propose a twotiered approach to evaluating susceptibility to ecological systems: a general susceptibility as a function of ecosystem type (based on structure and function of that system) and a differential in susceptibility within broad ecosystem types as a function of biotic and abiotic factors. In terrestrial ecosystems, the two factors that most affect overall susceptibility are species diversity and hydrology; evaluation of the effects of hazardous chemicals involves measuring species diversity and water movement. This same methodological approach can be applied to aquatic ecosystems and to highly altered ecosystems such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and urbanization.Environ Health Perspect 1 05(Suppl 4): 843-48 (1997)

Protective Sustainability of Ecosystems Using Department of Energy Buffer Lands as a Case Study

“…The centerpiece of such assessment is periodic monitoring of species, populations, communities, and ecosystems (structure and function). Monitoring plans should be designed to take into account the value, vulnerability, susceptibility, and resiliency of the ecosystem, as well as the level of sustainability desired (Burger, 1997a(Burger, , 2002(Burger, , 2006Leitao & Ahern, 2002;Cury et al, 2005).…”

Ecological vulnerability indicators

“…Such assessment should also involve the individual organisms therein, plus the structural and functional relationships between the organisms, and the abiotic environment (Burger, 1997;De Lange et al, 2010a). All these reflect the inherent intricacy of ecological systems which make their vulnerability rather difficult to quantify and be reduced to a single or few metrics.…”

A framework for analysis of contamination on human and ecological receptors at DOE hazardous waste site buffer lands

“…Such plans should take into account both the value and vulnerability of the ecosystems on DOE facilities, as well as the relative susceptibility of these ecosystems (Burger, 1997a;Burger et al, 2003). Indicators of ecosystem integrity will be most useful if (1) they include many species representing different tropic levels, (2) indicator selection is based on sound quantitative databases, and (3) caution is used in interpreting population trends, contaminant levels, and other parameters Carignan & Villard, 2001;Peakall, 1992).…”

“…This has often led to using a representative array of species with respect to sensitivity. Further, susceptibility of ecosystem types is seldom considered (Burger, 1997a). Some ecosystems are well buffered against perturbations including physical intrusion, climatic extremes, or pollution, while others are easily disrupted.…”

“…Some ecosystems are well buffered against perturbations including physical intrusion, climatic extremes, or pollution, while others are easily disrupted. A general rule is that more complex ecosystems, with more species at each trophic level, are less easily disrupted and are more resilient to damage (Burger, 1997a). The fact that an organism contacts a contaminated medium (for example, ingestion of contaminated soil or fish) does not automatically result in transfer of 100 percent of the contaminant to the organism.…”