Literature DB >> 12396520

Population growth rate as a basis for ecological risk assessment of toxic chemicals.

Valery E Forbes1, Peter Calow.   

Abstract

Assessing the ecological risks of toxic chemicals is most often based on individual-level responses such as survival, reproduction or growth. Such an approach raises the following questions with regard to translating these measured effects into likely impacts on natural populations. (i) To what extent do individual-level variables underestimate or overestimate population-level responses? (ii) How do toxicant-caused changes in individual-level variables translate into changes in population dynamics for species with different life cycles? (iii) To what extent are these relationships complicated by population-density effects? These issues go to the heart of the ecological relevance of ecotoxicology and we have addressed them using the population growth rate as an integrating concept. Our analysis indicates that although the most sensitive individual-level variables are likely to be equally or more sensitive to increasing concentrations of toxic chemicals than population growth rate, they are difficult to identify a priori and, even if they could be identified, integrating impacts on key life-cycle variables via population growth rate analysis is nevertheless a more robust approach for assessing the ecological risks of chemicals. Populations living under density-dependent control may respond differently to toxic chemicals than exponentially growing populations, and greater care needs to be given to incorporating realistic density conditions (either experimentally or by simulation) into ecotoxicological test designs. It is impractical to expect full life-table studies, which record changes in survival, fecundity and development at defined intervals through the life cycle of organisms under specified conditions, for all relevant species, so we argue that population growth rate analysis should be used to provide guidance for a more pragmatic and ecologically sound approach to ecological risk assessment.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12396520      PMCID: PMC1693029          DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8436            Impact factor:   6.237


  4 in total

1.  Population response to toxicants is altered by intraspecific interaction.

Authors:  Matthias Liess
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.742

2.  Are current species extrapolation models a good basis for ecological risk assessment?

Authors:  V E Forbes; P Calow; R M Sibly
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 3.  Behavioural models of population growth rates: implications for conservation and prediction.

Authors:  William J Sutherland; Ken Norris
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-09-29       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Effects of different food (Chlorella) concentrations on the chronic toxicity of cadmium to survivorship, growth and reproduction of Echinisca triserialis (Crustacea: Cladocera).

Authors:  T Chandini
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 8.071

  4 in total
  20 in total

Review 1.  Population growth rates: issues and an application.

Authors:  H Charles J Godfray; Mark Rees
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-09-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Extrapolating toxic effects on individuals to the population level: the role of dynamic energy budgets.

Authors:  Tjalling Jager; Chris Klok
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Acaricidal and sublethal effects of a Chenopodium-based biopesticide on the two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae).

Authors:  Asma Musa; Irena Međo; Ivana Marić; Dejan Marčić
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 2.132

4.  Rapid phenotypic changes in Caenorhabditis elegans under uranium exposure.

Authors:  Morgan Dutilleul; Laurie Lemaire; Denis Réale; Catherine Lecomte; Simon Galas; Jean-Marc Bonzom
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 2.823

5.  Direct evidence of poison-driven widespread population decline in a wild vertebrate.

Authors:  Patricia Mateo-Tomás; Pedro P Olea; Eva Mínguez; Rafael Mateo; Javier Viñuela
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  A comparison of simple and complex population models to reduce uncertainty in ecological risk assessments of chemicals: example with three species of Daphnia.

Authors:  Niklas Hanson; John D Stark
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 2.823

7.  Transforming ecosystems: When, where, and how to restore contaminated sites.

Authors:  Jason R Rohr; Aïda M Farag; Marc W Cadotte; William H Clements; James R Smith; Cheryl P Ulrich; Richard Woods
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.992

8.  Inter-comparison of population models for the calculation of radiation dose effects on wildlife.

Authors:  Jordi Vives I Batlle; Tatiana G Sazykina; Alexander Kryshev; Luigi Monte; Isao Kawaguchi
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  Consequences of a multi-generation exposure to uranium on Caenorhabditis elegans life parameters and sensitivity.

Authors:  Benoit Goussen; Florian Parisot; Rémy Beaudouin; Morgan Dutilleul; Adeline Buisset-Goussen; Alexandre R R Péry; Jean-Marc Bonzom
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 2.823

10.  Density, climate and varying return points: an analysis of long-term population fluctuations in the threatened European tree frog.

Authors:  Jérôme Pellet; Benedikt R Schmidt; Fabien Fivaz; Nicolas Perrin; Kurt Grossenbacher
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.