Journal
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 234-245Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2006-027.1
Keywords
In situ; Decision tree; Environmental monitoring; Caging; Mesocosm
Categories
Funding
- Environment Canada
- European Copper Institute
- International Copper Association
- International Lead Zinc Research Organization
- Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association
- Rio Tinto PLV
- Rohm and Haas Company
- Teck Cominco America
- UK Environment Agency
- US Army Corps of Engineers
- US Environmental Protection Agency
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Field-based (in situ) approaches are used increasingly for measuring biological effects and for stressor diagnoses in aquatic systems because these assessment tools provide realistic exposure environments that are rarely replicated in laboratory toxicity tests. Providing realistic exposure scenarios is important because environmental conditions can alter toxicity through complex exposure dynamics (e.g., multiple stressor interactions). In this critical review, we explore the information provided by aquatic in situ exposure and monitoring methods when compared with more traditional approaches and discuss the associated strengths and limitations of these techniques. In situ approaches can, under some circumstances, provide more valuable information to a decision maker than information from surveys of resident biota, laboratory toxicity tests, or chemical analyses alone. A decision tree is provided to assist decision makers in determining when in situ approaches can add value.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available