4.5 Article

Mean Species Abundance as a Measure of Ecotoxicological Risk

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 11, 页码 2304-2313

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.4850

关键词

Exposure-response relationship; Ecotoxicity; Species sensitivity distribution; Biodiversity metric; Intraspecies variation

资金

  1. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical pollution of surface waters is considered an important driver for recent declines in biodiversity. Species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) are commonly used to evaluate the ecological risks of chemical exposure, accounting for variation in interspecies sensitivity. However, SSDs do not reflect the effects of chemical exposure on species abundance, considered an important endpoint in biological conservation. Although complex population modeling approaches lack practical applicability when it comes to the routine practice of lower tier chemical risk assessment, in the present study we show how information from widely available laboratory toxicity tests can be used to derive the change in mean species abundance (MSA) as a function of chemical exposure. These exposure-response MSA relationships combine insights into intraspecies exposure-response relationships and population growth theory. We showcase the practical applicability of our method for cadmium, copper, and zinc, and include a quantification of the associated statistical uncertainty. For all 3 metals, we found that concentrations hazardous for 5% of the species (HC(5)s) based on MSA relationships are systematically higher than SSD-based HC(5)values. Our proposed framework can be useful to derive abundance-based ecological protective criteria for chemical exposure, and creates the opportunity to assess abundance impacts of chemical exposure in the context of various other anthropogenic stressors.Environ Toxicol Chem2020;00:1-10. (c) 2020 The Authors.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistrypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据