Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, Heslington, UK.
Department of Biology, Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, University of York, York, Heslington, UK.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2022 Sep;18(5):1135-1147. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4568. Epub 2022 Jan 18.
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).
传统的生态风险评估(ERA)主要评估单个化学胁迫物对有限范围的类群的影响,这些类群被认为是预测对淡水生态系统功能影响的替代物。然而,人们认识到这种方法的生态相关性有限。我们回顾了已发表的文献,以确定可能作为化学胁迫下泄的功能指标的措施,以此来提高 ERA 的生态相关性。我们发现,“生态系统功能”一词的用法存在广泛差异,我们得出的结论是,区分过程措施和过程能力措施(即物种的功能特征)很重要。在这里,我们提出了一种潜在功能指标的分类,并建议包括与过程更直接相关的指标将提高对生态系统功能影响的检测能力。落叶分解、产氧量、二氧化碳消耗量和生物量生产的速率具有作为功能指标的巨大潜力。然而,由于支持性证据有限,在这些措施能够在 ERA 和监管背景下得到充分实施和解释之前,还需要进一步研究。对化学胁迫的敏感性可能因功能指标和生态系统背景而异。因此,我们建议 ERA 纳入与感兴趣的功能的各个方面相关的各种指标,例如直接测量过程的指标(例如,落叶分解的速率)和过程的能力(例如,大型无脊椎动物的功能组成),以及结构指标(例如,大型无脊椎动物的分类多样性)。总的来说,我们相信功能指标的考虑可以通过提供更大的生态相关性为 ERA 增加价值,特别是在间接影响、功能补偿(框 1)、多种胁迫物的相互作用以及生态系统背景的重要性方面。Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1135-1147. © 2022 作者。综合环境评估与管理由 Wiley 期刊公司代表环境毒理学与化学学会(SETAC)出版。