Cargando…

Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment

Conventional ecological risk assessment (ERA) predominately evaluates the impact of individual chemical stressors on a limited range of taxa, which are assumed to act as proxies to predict impacts on freshwater ecosystem function. However, it is recognized that this approach has limited ecological r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harrison, Laura J., Pearson, Katie A., Wheatley, Christopher J., Hill, Jane K., Maltby, Lorraine, Rivetti, Claudia, Speirs, Lucy, White, Piran C. L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34951104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4568
_version_ 1784804330042294272
author Harrison, Laura J.
Pearson, Katie A.
Wheatley, Christopher J.
Hill, Jane K.
Maltby, Lorraine
Rivetti, Claudia
Speirs, Lucy
White, Piran C. L.
author_facet Harrison, Laura J.
Pearson, Katie A.
Wheatley, Christopher J.
Hill, Jane K.
Maltby, Lorraine
Rivetti, Claudia
Speirs, Lucy
White, Piran C. L.
author_sort Harrison, Laura J.
collection PubMed
description Conventional ecological risk assessment (ERA) predominately evaluates the impact of individual chemical stressors on a limited range of taxa, which are assumed to act as proxies to predict impacts on freshwater ecosystem function. However, it is recognized that this approach has limited ecological relevance. We reviewed the published literature to identify measures that are potential functional indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress, as an approach to building more ecological relevance into ERA. We found wide variation in the use of the term “ecosystem function,” and concluded it is important to distinguish between measures of processes and measures of the capacity for processes (i.e., species' functional traits). Here, we present a classification of potential functional indicators and suggest that including indicators more directly connected with processes will improve the detection of impacts on ecosystem functioning. The rate of leaf litter breakdown, oxygen production, carbon dioxide consumption, and biomass production have great potential to be used as functional indicators. However, the limited supporting evidence means that further study is needed before these measures can be fully implemented and interpreted within an ERA and regulatory context. Sensitivity to chemical stress is likely to vary among functional indicators depending on the stressor and ecosystem context. Therefore, we recommend that ERA incorporates a variety of indicators relevant to each aspect of the function of interest, such as a direct measure of a process (e.g., rate of leaf litter breakdown) and a capacity for a process (e.g., functional composition of macroinvertebrates), alongside structural indicators (e.g., taxonomic diversity of macroinvertebrates). Overall, we believe that the consideration of functional indicators can add value to ERA by providing greater ecological relevance, particularly in relation to indirect effects, functional compensation (Box 1), interactions of multiple stressors, and the importance of ecosystem context. Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1135–1147. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9543243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95432432022-10-14 Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment Harrison, Laura J. Pearson, Katie A. Wheatley, Christopher J. Hill, Jane K. Maltby, Lorraine Rivetti, Claudia Speirs, Lucy White, Piran C. L. Integr Environ Assess Manag Critical Review Conventional ecological risk assessment (ERA) predominately evaluates the impact of individual chemical stressors on a limited range of taxa, which are assumed to act as proxies to predict impacts on freshwater ecosystem function. However, it is recognized that this approach has limited ecological relevance. We reviewed the published literature to identify measures that are potential functional indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress, as an approach to building more ecological relevance into ERA. We found wide variation in the use of the term “ecosystem function,” and concluded it is important to distinguish between measures of processes and measures of the capacity for processes (i.e., species' functional traits). Here, we present a classification of potential functional indicators and suggest that including indicators more directly connected with processes will improve the detection of impacts on ecosystem functioning. The rate of leaf litter breakdown, oxygen production, carbon dioxide consumption, and biomass production have great potential to be used as functional indicators. However, the limited supporting evidence means that further study is needed before these measures can be fully implemented and interpreted within an ERA and regulatory context. Sensitivity to chemical stress is likely to vary among functional indicators depending on the stressor and ecosystem context. Therefore, we recommend that ERA incorporates a variety of indicators relevant to each aspect of the function of interest, such as a direct measure of a process (e.g., rate of leaf litter breakdown) and a capacity for a process (e.g., functional composition of macroinvertebrates), alongside structural indicators (e.g., taxonomic diversity of macroinvertebrates). Overall, we believe that the consideration of functional indicators can add value to ERA by providing greater ecological relevance, particularly in relation to indirect effects, functional compensation (Box 1), interactions of multiple stressors, and the importance of ecosystem context. Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1135–1147. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-01-18 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9543243/ /pubmed/34951104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4568 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Critical Review
Harrison, Laura J.
Pearson, Katie A.
Wheatley, Christopher J.
Hill, Jane K.
Maltby, Lorraine
Rivetti, Claudia
Speirs, Lucy
White, Piran C. L.
Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title_full Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title_fullStr Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title_full_unstemmed Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title_short Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
title_sort functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
topic Critical Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34951104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4568
work_keys_str_mv AT harrisonlauraj functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT pearsonkatiea functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT wheatleychristopherj functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT hilljanek functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT maltbylorraine functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT rivetticlaudia functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT speirslucy functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment
AT whitepirancl functionalmeasuresaspotentialindicatorsofdownthedrainchemicalstressinfreshwaterecologicalriskassessment