US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, United States of America.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, United States of America.
Sci Total Environ. 2019 May 1;663:465-478. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.153. Epub 2019 Jan 15.
The protection of listed species through the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) process is encumbered by the number and diversity of species that need protection and the limited data available to inform assessments. Ecological communities within isolated ecosystems often contain a number of biologically diverse endemic, endangered, and threatened species, as well as providing numerous ecosystem services (ES). We propose an approach that develops community-level protection goals using isolated wetlands that includes both listed species and Service Providing Units (SPUs) that drive ES for ecological risk assessments (ERAs). Community-level protection goals are achieved by developing a protection community and weighing lines of evidence to determine a set of focal species within that community upon which to base the assessment. Lines of evidence include chemical mechanism of action, likely routes of exposure, and taxa susceptibility, as well as relationships among species, and other ecological factors. We demonstrate the process using case studies of chlorpyrifos in California vernal pools and coal ash effluent in Carolina bays. In the California vernal pool case study, listed species were the primary SPUs for the ES provided by the critical habitat. The weight of evidence demonstrated the honey bee as the focal species for the terrestrial environment and the vernal pool fairy shrimp as the focal species for the aquatic environment. The protection community within the Carolina bay case study was more taxonomically diverse than vernal pools for both listed species and SPUs, with amphibians identified as the focal species for which to target mitigation goals and hazard levels. The approach presented here will reduce the time and resource investment required for assessment of risk to listed species and adds an ES perspective to demonstrate value of assessments beyond listed species concerns.
通过生态风险评估(ERA)过程对受保护物种进行保护,受到需要保护的物种数量和多样性以及用于评估的有限数据的限制。孤立生态系统内的生态群落通常包含许多具有生物多样性的特有种、濒危种和受威胁种,以及提供多种生态系统服务(ES)。我们提出了一种方法,使用包括受保护物种和提供服务的单元(SPU)在内的孤立湿地来制定社区保护目标,这些 SPU 为生态风险评估(ERAs)提供服务。通过开发保护社区并权衡证据线来确定社区内的一组焦点物种来实现社区保护目标,以此为评估提供依据。证据线包括化学作用机制、可能的暴露途径和易感性分类群,以及物种之间的关系和其他生态因素。我们使用加利福尼亚州 vernal 池中的毒死蜱和卡罗来纳湾中的煤灰废水的案例研究来演示该过程。在加利福尼亚 vernal 池案例研究中,受保护物种是关键栖息地提供的 ES 的主要 SPU。证据表明,蜜蜂是陆地环境的焦点物种,而 vernal 池仙女虾是水生环境的焦点物种。卡罗来纳湾案例研究中的保护社区在受保护物种和 SPU 方面比 vernal 池更具分类多样性,两栖动物被确定为需要针对的焦点物种,以实现缓解目标和危害水平。这里提出的方法将减少评估对受保护物种风险所需的时间和资源投入,并增加 ES 视角,以展示评估超越受保护物种关注的价值。