基于信息网络模型的生态风险评价

人类开发活动造成剧烈的生态系统自然条件变化,生态风险评价可以对受到人为干扰下生态系统(包括物种和群落等)的潜在影响进行模拟和量化。通过对信息流量的概念和网络控制分析,综合考虑生态系统组分间的直接和间接作用,提出一种能实现全局风险模拟的生态网络模型,即信息网络模型。在该模型基础上,建立了面向整体生态系统的生态风险评价框架,同时实现兼容多胁迫因子统一模拟和多风险受体间的风险追踪。以澜沧江漫湾水库为例,在估算重金属Hg、Pb和Cd初始环境风险后,利用信息网络模型追踪分析生态系统中不同生态功能组分之间的风险传递路径,评估各生态组分和整体系统的危险程度。结果表明,在累积效应作用下,对于生态系统和部分群落,整合网络风险值与初始环境风险值之间有着显著差别;在发生环境胁迫时,虽然处于食物网底层的生物类群可能最先受险,但在控制信息作用下食物网上层类群也会受险,甚至其最终受到的潜在威胁比前者更大。信息网络模型可识别出复杂的风险流动路径和群落间的风险累积,从而为生态系统风险评价和管理提供更为系统综合的理论依据。     

城市生态风险评价研究进展

随着城市化发展和城市人居环境的恶化,城市生态风险越来越受到关注,但尚缺乏有关城市生态风险评价的深入系统研究.本文依据城市生态学原理及生态风险评价框架从驱动力、风险源、风险受体与评价终点,以及生态风险综合评价方法等方面对城市生态风险评价研究进行综述.指出城市经济社会活动类型与程度是城市生态风险产生的主要驱动力;城市生态系统不同等级功能实体和城市整体是城市生态风险评价中的风险受体;城市生态风险评价终点包括城市生态系统结构、过程、功能要素,以及城市整体水平的性质和功能变化;耦合了社会经济需求的生态系统模型是城市生态风险评价方法的发展方向.未来城市生态风险评价研究应明确生态风险管理具体目标,确定综合性评价终点,建立多指标评价体系和综合评价方法.     

基于生态系统服务的生态风险评价研究进展

生态风险评价对科学管理与保护生态系统具有重要的意义,为弥补传统生态风险评价方法的不足和提高风险管理的效率,将生态系统服务引入生态风险评价中进行发展和完善,成为了当前生态风险评价研究的前沿和热点。系统分析了生态系统服务在生态风险评价中的应用,指出生态系统服务在问题形成阶段中可明确保护对象和属性,在风险分析阶段可联系生态系统结构过程作用,在风险表征阶段及后续阶段能可提供清晰明确的评价结果,加强风险交流和管理,能有效地改进生态系统传统生态风险评价。在实践上,基于生态系统服务的生态风险评价可从3个不同层面开展:一是针对外界压力对某类特定功能或者系统中某些服务功能的影响,构建基于某种特定服务的实体属性评价方法;二是针对外界压力作用下生态系统结构与过程变化下对功能影响,构建基于复杂生态系统作用的评价方法,实现对生态风险的模拟评价;三是评价社会生态系统下外界驱动对人类福祉的影响时,可将DPSIR(Drive-Pressure-State-Impact-Response)理论模型运用到生态风险管理中,也可基于景观生态系统服务与压力源的空间作用关系,实现社会生态系统风险评价与管理。作为生态风险表征手段,可基于生态系统服务损失与不利服务进行表征,也可选取热力学等指标作为评估量纲。从理论、评价方法、风险管理等方面对基于生态系统服务生态风险评价给予展望。     

基于Citespace软件的生态风险知识图谱分析

伴随着重大环境事件频发,环境污染、生态破坏现象的日益严峻,生态风险研究受到各国学者和政府的广泛关注。对整个生态风险研究领域进行全面系统的分析,旨在探究研究热点及趋势,归纳研究主题演进,了解当前国际研究现状。以Web of Science数据库为数据源,利用Citespace软件,绘制生态风险研究知识图谱,进行文献可视化分析。研究发现:(1)国际生态风险研究的发文数量经历了缓慢增长-平稳增长-迅速增长3个阶段;(2)生态风险研究分为奠基期,成长期,拓展期3个阶段,各阶段研究热点不同,当前研究热点是"空间分布、生态系统服务、城市土壤、源解析、海洋沉积物";(3)生态风险研究由单一风险源、风险受体、小尺度的评价演化为多种风险源、多种风险受体的大尺度综合评价;(4)欧美国家、学者奠定了该领域的研究基础,中国起步较晚但发展迅速。     

转基因植物的生态风险评价

自从１９８３年第一株转基因植物诞生以来,至今各种类型的转基因植物进入大田试验的已不计其数,近１０种转基因作物的产物已经商品化。与此同时,转基因植物向环境释放后可能带来的生态风险问题也越来越受到人们的重视。关于转基因植物的生态风险或对环境的危害,科学家提出了不同的概念和测试方法。生态毒理学的经验以及８０年代发展起来的,为作环境决策用的生态风险评价的经验可以借鉴以作转基因植物生态风险的评价。本文介绍了转基因植物对农田生态系统和自然生态系统可能带来的危害以及从基因、基因组、个体、种群以至生态系统等各级水平上危害测试的方法。对风险的判断作了详细的论述,对风险的管理也作了概略的介绍,并对生态风险评价当前发展的水平进行了讨论。     

区域生态风险评价研究进展

生态风险评价是一种重要的生态环境管理手段。从区域尺度着手,分析生态系统所遭受的风险,对加强生态系统管理、区域生态安全具有重要的现实意义。本文在回顾国内外区域生态风险评价概念内涵、主要内容及其发展历程的基础上,对当前研究区域、研究尺度、研究模型和研究的不确定性分析等关键性问题做了较为系统的探讨,并就其未来研究方向进行了展望。     

生态安全评价研究述评

生态安全评价是可持续发展研究的一个新领域,也是建立生态安全预警系统及进行环境管理的基础。首先介绍了与生态安全评价相关的几个概念:生态风险评价、生态系统健康评价、生态系统服务功能评价及生态承载力分析,进而对当前生态安全评价的指标体系进行了评述,并在此基础上总结了国内外生态安全评价的方法,包括数学模型法、生态模型法、景观生态学法及数字地面模型法;最后,提出在评价实践中存在的问题及今后发展的3个方向,静态的现状评价转向动态的预测和预警、与现代科学技术相结合、与基础理论相结合。     

应用生态学的现状与展望

应用生态学是迅猛发展的现代生态学的主体．寻求解决人口、资源、环境等问题是应用生态学发展的主要动力．经过40年的发展,应用生态学已发展成为一个庞大的学科门类．应用生态学未来的发展应更多地关注受人类影响和管理的生态系统并将人视为生态系统的组成成分．应用生态学在当前和今后应给予优先重视的研究领域,包括生态系统与生物圈的可持续利用、生态系统服务与生态设计、转基因生物的生态学评价、生物入侵生态学、流行病生态学、生态预报、生态过程及其调控等．在今后若干年内。围绕这些领域,可能会出现广泛而活跃的研究热潮以及一些新的特点．     

极端干旱对陆地生态系统的影响:进展与展望

作为地球表层重要的组成部分,陆地生态系统是人类生存和发展的重要场所。进入21世纪以来,气候变化导致干旱事件发生的强度、频度和持续时间显著增加,对陆地生态系统带来深远的影响,严重制约甚至威胁人类社会的可持续发展。因此,开展极端干旱对陆地生态系统影响的研究并评估其生态风险效应,是当前全球变化领域研究的重点问题。该文从植物生理生态过程、生物地球化学循环、生物多样性以及生态系统结构和功能4个方面综述了极端干旱对陆地生态系统的影响,并对当前的研究热点进行探讨,深度剖析当前研究中存在的难点问题和未来可能的发展方向,以期为未来开展干旱对陆地生态系统影响的观测与预测研究提供参考,为在未来干旱影响下加强陆地生态系统风险评估和管理提供新思路。     

Effects of extreme drought on terrestrial ecosystems: review and prospects

作为地球表层重要的组成部分, 陆地生态系统是人类生存和发展的重要场所。进入21世纪以来, 气候变化导致干旱事件发生的强度、频度和持续时间显著增加, 对陆地生态系统带来深远的影响, 严重制约甚至威胁人类社会的可持续发展。因此, 开展极端干旱对陆地生态系统影响的研究并评估其生态风险效应, 是当前全球变化领域研究的重点问题。该文从植物生理生态过程、生物地球化学循环、生物多样性以及生态系统结构和功能4个方面综述了极端干旱对陆地生态系统的影响, 并对当前的研究热点进行探讨, 深度剖析当前研究中存在的难点问题和未来可能的发展方向, 以期为未来开展干旱对陆地生态系统影响的观测与预测研究提供参考, 为在未来干旱影响下加强陆地生态系统风险评估和管理提供新思路。     

Integration of Ecosystem Services into Ecological Risk Assessment for Implementation in Ecosystem-Based River Management: A Case Study of the Yellow River,China

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) is a scientific tool used to support ecosystem-based management (EBM), but most current ERA methods consider only a few indices of particular species or components. Such limitations restrict the scope of results so that they are insufficient to reflect the integrated risk characterization of an ecosystem, thereby inhibiting the application of ERA in EBM. We incorporate the concept of ecosystem services into ERA and develop an improved ERA framework to create a comprehensive risk map of an ecosystem, accounting for multiple human activities and ecosystem services. Using the Yellow River as a case study, we show how this framework enables the implementation of integrated risk characterization and prioritization of the most important ecological risk issues in the ecosystem-based river management of the Yellow River. This framework can help practitioners facilitate better implementation of ERA within EBM in rivers or any target ecosystem.     

Approaches to Ecological Risk Characterization and Management: Selecting the Right Tools for the Job

Chemical-specific hazard quotient (HQ) risk characterization in ecological risk assessment (ERA) can be a value-added tool for risk management decision-making at chemical release sites, when applied appropriately. However, there is little consensus regarding how HQ results can be used for risk management decision-making at the population, community, and ecosystem levels. Furthermore, stakeholders are reluctant to consider alternatives to HQ results for risk management decisions. Chemical-specific HQs risk characterization should be viewed as only one of several approaches (i.e., tools) for addressing ecological issues; and in many situations, other quantitative and qualitative approaches will likely result in superior risk management decisions. The purpose of this paper is to address fundamental issues and limitations associated with chemical-specific HQ risk characterization in ERA, to identify when it may be appropriate, to explore alternatives that are currently available, and to identify areas that could be developed for the future. Several alternatives (i.e., compensatory restoration, performance-based ecological monitoring, ecological significance criteria, net environmental benefit analysis), including their limitations, that can supplement, augment, or substitute for HQs in ERA are presented. In addition, areas of research (i.e., wildlife habitat assessment/landscape ecology/population biology, and field validated risk-based screening levels) that could yield new tools are discussed.     

区域生态风险评价的关键问题与展望

区域生态风险评价具有多风险因子、多风险受体、多评价终点、强调不确定性因素以及空间异质性的特点,它与传统的生态风险评价在风险源、胁迫因子和评价尺度上具有明显区别。尝试建立了一个基于陆地生态系统的区域生态风险评价框架,同时针对目前区域生态风险评价的研究现状,指出不确定性分析、尺度外推难、评价指标不统一、评价标准不统一、风险因子筛选及优先排序、区域内污染物复合、水生过渡到陆生生态系统风险评价、特殊的人为因素等是目前区域生态风险评价存在的关键问题及难点所在,并提出解决这些问题可能所需的工具、手段和理论方法突破。最后指出区域生态风险观测与数据采集加工、区域生态风险指标体系的统一与整合、区域生态风险评价方法论、区域生态风险的空间分布特征与表达以及区域生态风险评价反馈与管理机制5个方面是区域生态风险评价未来的研究重点。     

Adding Value to Ecological Risk Assessment with Population Modeling

Current measures used to estimate the risks of toxic chemicals are not relevant to the goals of the environmental protection process, and thus ecological risk assessment (ERA) is not used as extensively as it should be as a basis for cost-effective management of environmental resources. Appropriate population models can provide a powerful basis for expressing ecological risks that better inform the environmental management process and thus that are more likely to be used by managers. Here we provide at least five reasons why population modeling should play an important role in bridging the gap between what we measure and what we want to protect. We then describe six actions needed for its implementation into management-relevant ERA.     

基于多风险源胁迫的西南地区生态风险评价

西南地区生态环境复杂、人地矛盾突出,生态系统面临着多种风险胁迫,进行生态风险评价对区域生态风险的预警和防控具有重要的意义。基于西南地区的生态环境特征,将生态风险分为自然灾害风险与人类活动风险,从风险源危险性、生态系统潜在损失度、生态系统易损性3个方面构建单一风险评价模型,将单一风险评价结果进行综合分析得到西南地区综合生态风险结果。研究表明,西南高生态风险区面积为17.02万km2,占研究区总面积7.4%,主要分布在念青唐古拉山、邛崃山、哀牢山、无量山、金沙江、怒江、澜沧江、大渡河流域等地,以及成都、重庆、贵阳等人地作用强烈的大城市周边。这些地区环境复杂,灾害易发,应加强防控与监测,优化产业结构,继续推进生态保护工程,降低生态风险。     

Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance and Procedural Documents: An Annotated Compilation and Evaluation of Reference Materials

The scientific approach toward ecological risk assessment (ERA) has advanced greatly during the 1990s. This growth has been accompanied by the development of ERA guidance by USEPA Headquarters, individual USEPA Regions, state environmental agencies, as well as international agencies. This compilation of ERA guidance and procedural documents identifies many of the existing ERA reference materials from the regulatory and/or governmental agency arena. In addition, this compilation provides annotations pertaining to the focus of each reviewed document, and compares/contrasts the approaches presented in the documents. As such, the evaluation provides insight into some of the qualities and levels of detail provided by each document. Examples of documents which are highlighted include recently published USEPA's “Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment;” USEPA's “Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund;” the U.S. Army's “Procedural Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessments;” and Environment Canada's “Ecological Risk Assessments Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.”     

Improving the Applicability of Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment Tools—Understanding Demand-Side Changes

Quantitative ecological risk assessment (ERA) methods are the tools of choice for many natural resource management agencies and practitioners. However, a number of researchers and practitioners have recently highlighted that the application of quantitative ERA tools has perhaps been somewhat limited and this has stimulated discussion on the limitations of these methods, considered to be supply-side limitations in this analysis. By contrast, it is argued here that the demand for risk assessment tools has also changed substantively and this also acts to limit the use of ERA approaches. In particular, demand has changed through an increasing expectation that quantitative ERA tools will be able to capture ecosystem-scale, and sometimes global-scale interactions to support ecosystem-based management approaches. Similarly, the burgeoning use of market-based policy instruments often underpinned by the allocation of private property rights to an increasing number of ecosystem goods and services has fundamentally changed many natural resource management issues into allocation conflicts between alternate rights-holders. These demand-side changes represent both an opportunity and a challenge for developers of quantitative ERA tools.     

Environmental Risks Caused by Pesticides at Forest Nurseries in Finland

Previously, various persistent pesticides were used extensively in the production of seedlings at Finnish forest nurseries. The extent and magnitude of the risks arising from the consequent environmental contamination are largely unknown. Therefore, we selected two representative nurseries for which we conducted tiered health risk assessments (HRA) using risk-based benchmarks and two calculation tools (SSL and Risc-Human software). Ecological risk assessments (ERA) involved comparisons of environmental concentrations with ecotoxicological benchmarks. Site investigations revealed that the concentration of several pesticides exceeded the Finnish soil quality guidelines in some places. The compost pile for organic residues and the pond receiving runoffs contained traces of pesticides and the maximum concentration of atrazine and terbuthylazine in groundwater exceeded the corresponding guideline for household water. Hexachlorobenzene proved to pose the highest health risks, the maximum hazard quotient being around 10 (carcinogenity-based) in the residential land use scenario. Owing to the conservative assumptions, health risks are expected to remain insignificant, however. Risks to the local terrestrial ecosystem would also remain low, while only further studies will reveal the actual risks to the adjoining aquatic ecosystem. Both calculation tools showed shortcomings that generate uncertainty in the HRA, whereas the ERA was hampered particularly by the lack of benchmarks.     

Role of Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment

Ecological models are useful tools for evaluating the ecological significance of observed or predicted effects of toxic chemicals on individual organisms. Current risk estimation approaches using hazard quotients for individual-level endpoints have limited utility for assessing risks at the population, ecosystem, and landscape levels, which are the most relevant indicators for environmental management. In this paper, we define different types of ecological models, summarize their input and output variables, and present examples of the role of some recommended models in chemical risk assessments. A variety of population and ecosystem models have been applied successfully to evaluate ecological risks, including population viability of endangered species, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemical issues. In particular, population models are widely available, and their value in predicting dynamics of natural populations has been demonstrated. Although data are often limited on vital rates and doseresponse functions needed for ecological modeling, accurate prediction of ecological effects may not be needed for all assessments. Often, a comparative assessment of risk (e.g., relative to baseline or reference) is of primary interest. Ecological modeling is currently a valuable approach for addressing many chemical risk assessment issues, including screening-level evaluations.