The Intersection of Independent Lies: Increasing Realism in Ecological Risk Assessment

In 1966, Levins presented a philosophical discussion on making inference about populations using clusters of models. In this article we provide an overview of model inference in ecological risk assessment, discuss the benefits and trade-offs of increasing model realism, show the similarities and differences between Levins' model clusters and those used in ecological risk assessment, and present how risk assessment models can incorporate Levins' ideas of truth through independent lies. Two aspects of Levins' philosophy are directly relevant to risk assessment. First, confidence in our interpretation of risk is increased when multiple risk assessments yield similar qualitative results. Second, model clusters should be evaluated to determine if they maximize precision, generality, or realism or a mix of the three. In the later case, the evaluation of each model will differ depending on whether it is more general, precise, or realistic relative to the other models used. We conclude that risk assessments can be strengthened using Levins' idea, but that Levins' caution that model outcome should not be mistaken for truth is still applicable.     

Performing Spatially and Temporally Explicit Ecological Exposure Assessments Involving Multiple Stressors

Ecological risk assessments have traditionally focused on estimating risk associated with a receptor's exposure to chemical stressors in abiotic (soil, water, etc.) and biotic (tissues, prey items) media. However, a free-living receptor is also constantly challenged to avoid or minimize adverse effects associated with those physical (e.g., loss of habitat) and biological (e.g., lack of adequate food) stressors that are already a consistent and natural part of its everyday existence. All three stressors, as well as their relative spatial and temporal positions with respect to each other and the receptor, may interact in ways that alter a chemical stressor's relative contribution to a receptor's overall risk. Evidence suggests that better representations of a chemical stressor's true contribution to overall risk would result if spatial, temporal, and multiple stressor interactions were more routinely considered and quantified. However, examples of this occurring in typical ecological risk assessments are rare, due, in part, to a lack of practical and accessible procedures for this purpose. This article outlines a procedure to give ecological risk assessment practitioners greater access to spatial, temporal, and multistressor techniques, describes an implementable spreadsheet-based model for performing calculations associated with this procedure, and discusses the types of ecological, life history, and landscape information needed to parameterize this model.     

A Strategy for Using Weight-of-Evidence Methods in Ecological Risk Assessments

Our review of existing approaches and regulatory uses of weight-of-evidence (WOE) methods suggested the need for a practical strategy for deploying WOE within a predictive ecological risk assessment (ERA). WOE is the process of considering strengths and weaknesses of various pieces of information in order to inform a decision being made among competing alternatives. A predictive ERA uses existing information relating cause and effect to estimate the probability that today's action X will lead to tomorrow's adverse outcome Y. There appears to be no practical guidance for use of WOE in predictive assessments. We therefore propose a strategy for using a WOE approach, within an ERA framework, to weigh and integrate outcomes from various lines of evidence to estimate the probability of an adverse outcome in an assessment endpoint. An ERA framework is necessary to connect the results of an assessment to the management goals of concern to decision-makers and stakeholders. Within that framework, a WOE approach provides a consistent and transparent means of interpreting the myriad types of data and information gathered during a complex ecological assessment. Impediments to application of WOE are discussed, including limited regulatory guidance, limited prior regulatory use, and persistent reliance on threshold-based decision-making.     

The Need for Multiple Lines of Evidence for Predicting Site-Specific Ecological Effects

The goal of this paper is to illustrate the value and importance of the “weight of evidence” approach (use of multiple lines of evidence from field and laboratory data) to assess the occurrence or absence of ecological impairment in the aquatic environment. Single species toxicity tests, microcosms, and community metric approaches such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) are discussed. Single species toxicity tests or other single lines of evidence are valuable first tier assessments that should be used as screening tools to identify potentially toxic conditions in a effluent or the ambient environment but these tests should not be used as the final quantitative indicator of absolute ecological impairment that may result in regulatory action. Both false positive and false negative predictions of ecological effects can occur due to the inherent variability of measurement endpoints such as survival, growth and reproduction used in single species toxicity tests. A comparison of single species ambient toxicity test results with field data showed that false positives are common and likely related to experimental variability or toxicity to selected test species without measureable effects on the ecosystem. Results from microcosm studies have consistently demonstrated that chemical exposures exceeding the acute or chronic toxicity concentrations for highly sensitive species may cause little or no ecologically significant damage to an aquatic ecosystem. Sources of uncertainty identified when extrapolating from single species tests to ecological effects were: variability in individual response to pesticide exposure; variation among species in sensitivity to pesticides; effects of time varying and repeated exposures; and extrapolation from individual to population-level endpoints. Data sets from the Chesapeake Bay area (Maryland) were used to show the importance of using “multiple lines of evidence” when assessing biological impact due to conflicting results reported from ambient water column and sediment toxicity tests and biological indices (benthic and fish IBIs). Results from water column and sediment toxicity tests with multiple species in tidal areas showed that no single species was consistently the most sensitive. There was also a high degree of disagreement between benthic and fish IBI data for the various stations. The lack of agreement for these biological community indices is not surprising due to the differences in exposure among habitats occupied by these different taxonomic assemblages. Data from a fish IBI, benthic IBI and Maryland Physical Habitat Index (MPHI) were compared for approximately 1100 first through third-order Maryland non-tidal streams to show the complexity of data interpretation and the incidence of conflicting lines of evidence. A key finding from this non-tidal data set was the need for using more than one biological indicator to increase the discriminatory power of identifying impaired streams and reduce the possibility of “false negative results”. Based on historical data, temporal variability associated with an IBI in undisturbed areas was reported to be lower than the variability associated with single species toxicity tests.     

A Practical Probabilistic Graphical Modeling Tool for Weighing Ecological Risk-Based Evidence

Past weight-of-evidence frameworks for adverse ecological effects have provided soft-scoring procedures for judgments based on the quality and measured attributes of evidence. Here, we provide a flexible probabilistic structure for weighing and integrating lines of evidence for ecological risk determinations. Probabilistic approaches can provide both a quantitative weighing of lines of evidence and methods for evaluating risk and uncertainty. The current modeling structure was developed for propagating uncertainties in measured endpoints and their influence on the plausibility of adverse effects. To illustrate the approach, we apply the model framework to the sediment quality triad using example lines of evidence for sediment chemistry measurements, bioassay results, and in situ infauna diversity of benthic communities using a simplified hypothetical case study. We then combine the three lines evidence and evaluate sensitivity to the input parameters, and show how uncertainties are propagated and how additional information can be incorporated to rapidly update the probability of impacts. The developed network model can be expanded to accommodate additional lines of evidence, variables and states of importance, and different types of uncertainties in the lines of evidence including spatial and temporal as well as measurement errors.     

Strategies for Assessing Cumulative Ecological Risks

Assessing and managing the ecological risks from multiple stressors is becoming increasingly important as our environmental and regulatory focus moves from managing point sources to one of managing and trading risks from multiples sources over large geographic areas. There are important corollaries to this shift in focus and scale, one is the increased role and importance of non-chemical stressors in shaping and controlling ecological systems, the fact that these categories of stress are, for the most part, not regulated under the traditional legislative mandates, that we have limited knowledge regarding the interaction of chemical and non-chemical stressors, that at large scales we are faced with the integration of and trading of risks to multiple resource categories. This trend of increased attention to regional-scale environmental issues requires the development of new analysis and interpretive strategies and highlight the need for a systematic framework for addressing the ecological effects of multiple stressors at regional ecological scales. We propose that such a framework have three essential properties: it be risk-based; it be effects driven; and it have the flexibility to be used in both a retrospective and prospective manner. While several approaches have been proposed we believe that an ecological risk assessment framework satisfies these criteria, has been used successfully in regional assessments, and can readily be modified and adapted to serve a wide variety of problem settings.     

Developing Conceptual Models for Complex Ecological Risk Assessments

Conceptual models are representations of the assumed relationship between sources and effects. They serve three important purposes. (1) Their creation compels assessors to think through and clarify their assumptions concerning the activities being assessed. (2) They serve as a communication tool for conveying those assumptions to risk managers and stakeholders. (3) They provide a basis for organizing and conducting the risk assessment. Conceptual models for risk assessments of chemical contaminants have not been problematical because they simply portray the flow of the contaminant from a source to a receptor that experiences toxic effects. However, ecological risk assessments must increasingly deal with direct and indirect effects on multiple endpoint receptors and with multiple complex activities including both physical effects and toxic effects. This complexity may result in conceptual models that are incomplete, ambiguous, or simply too complex to be understood. This paper presents a strategy for creating conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments that are not only complete but also clear and comprehensible. The strategy also promotes efficiency by creating modular component models for activities, sites, and receptors that can be reused in different combinations in different assessments.     

Planning Transboundary Ecological Risk Assessments at Military Installations

Ecological risk assessments at military installations that are performed to support natural resources management objectives rely on information from the surrounding region. Stressors such as noise, ozone, and ozone precursors cross installation boundaries, and effects of urbanization and highway development are regional in scale. Ecological populations are not limited to one side of the installation boundary. Therefore, a framework for transboundary ecological risk assessment at military installations is under development. This article summarizes the problem formulation stage. Components include: (1) regional management goals such as installation Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans and land acquisition, (2) involvement of multiple stressors, and (3) large-scale assessment endpoint entities. Challenges of selecting measures of exposure include: quantifying exposure to aggregate stressors, describing land cover consistently in the region, describing rates of land-cover transition, scaling local measurements to a region, and aggregating or isolating exposures from within and outside of the installation. Measures of effect that are important to transboundary or regional ecological risk assessments at military installations are those that represent: effects at a distance from the stressor, large-scale effects, effects of habitat change or fragmentation, spatial extrapolations of localized effects, and integrated effects of multiple stressors. These factors are reflected in conceptual models.     

A Framework for Assessment of Ecological Risks from Multiple Activities

The standard framework for ecological risk assessment does not explicitly address multiple activities. Although this has not prevented its use for assessments of risks from multiple agents, the routine assessment of complex programs or of multiple agents acting on a site, watershed or region would be aided by use of a framework that is designed for that purpose. The framework proposed in this paper is modular with respect to the individual activities which makes the assessment more manageable and more efficient when the same activities are addressed in multiple programs or at multiple sites. It explicitly allows for analysis of indirect effects in terms of causal chains. It includes links to other risk assessments for which changes in ecological conditions are the hazardous agent. For example, changes in ecological condition may create risks to agricultural economies or to the cultural resource values of a site. Finally, the framework includes a standard approach to estimating the combined effects of the multiple agents acting on a receptor.     

A blueprint for the problem formulation phase of EPA-type ecological risk assessments for 316(b) determinations

The difference between management objectives focused on sustainability of fish populations and the indigenous aquatic community, and a management objective focused on minimizing entrainment and impingement losses accounts for much of the ongoing controversy surrounding paragraph 316(b). We describe the EPA's ecological risk assessment framework and recommend that this framework be used to more effectively address differences in management objectives and structure paragraph 316(b) determinations. We provide a blueprint for the problem formulation phase of EPA-type ecological risk assessments for cooling-water intake structures (CWIS) at existing power plant facilities. Our management objectives, assessment endpoints, conceptual model, and generic analysis plan apply to all existing facilities. However, adapting the problem formulation process for a specific facility requires consideration of the permitting agency's guidelines and level of regulatory concern, as well as site-specific ecological and technical differences. The facility-specific problem formulation phase is designed around the hierarchy of biological levels of organization in the generic conceptual model and the sequence of cause-effect events and risk hypotheses represented by this model. Problem formulation is designed to be flexible in that it can be tailored for facilities where paragraph 316(b) regulatory concern is low or high. For some facilities, we anticipate that the assessment can be completed based on consideration of susceptibility alone. At the other extreme, a high level of regulatory concern combined with the availability of extensive information and consideration of costly CWIS mitigation options may result in the ecological risk assessment relying on analyses at all levels. Decisions on whether to extend the ecological risk assessment to additional levels should be based on whether regulatory or generator concerns merit additional analyses and whether available information is adequate to support such analyses. In making these decisions, the functional dependence between levels of analysis must be considered in making the transition to the analysis phase and risk estimation component of the ecological risk assessment. Regardless of how the generic analysis plan is modified to develop a facility-specific analysis plan, the resulting plan should be viewed as a tool for comparing representative species and alternative CWIS options by focusing on relative changes (i.e., proportional or percent changes) in various measures. The analysis plan is specifically designed to encourage consideration of multiple lines of evidence and to characterize uncertainties in each line of evidence. Multiple lines of evidence from different levels of analysis, obtained using both prospective and retrospective techniques, provide a broader perspective on the magnitude of potential effects and associated uncertainties and risks. The implications of the EPA's recent (April 2002) proposed regulations for existing facilities on the applicability of this blueprint are briefly considered.     

Ecological paradoxes*

Two controversial areas of ecology are examined critically to ascertain the limits of some current theories. In the field of population ecology it is argued that no general theory can explain the regulation of animal numbers. Existing theories are considered inadequate because either (1) evidence points to multiple causes rather than a single cause, (2) propositions lose scientific appeal by accumulating qualifiers, or (3) conflicting theories are irrefutable in scientific inquiry. Different research strategies are required to discover generalities in population regulation. In the field of community organization it is pointed out that too much emphasis on the competitive exclusion principle has blinded ecologists from the clustering of resources and of species populations. Conditions of co-existence as well as segregation are considered important in the organization of communities, which allow elements of chance in small scale distribution. The ecological world is likened to the physical world in which small scale disorder leads to order on a large scale. For the development of a global ecology the acceleration of studies in the tropics and the southern hemisphere is urged.     

Finding A Niche for Soil Microbial Toxicity Tests in Ecological Risk Assessment

Soil microbial toxicity tests are seldom used in ecological risk assessments or in the development of regulatory criteria in the U.S. The primary reason is the lack of an explicit connection between these tests and assessment end-points. Soil microorganisms have three potential roles with respect to ecological assessment endpoints: properties of microbial communities may be end-points; microbial responses may be used to estimate effects on plant production; and microbial responses may be used as surrogates for responses of higher organisms. Rates of microbial processes are important to ecosystem function, and thus should be valued by regulatory agencies. However, the definition of the microbial assessment endpoint is often an impediment to its use in risk assessment. Decreases in rates are not always undesirable. Processes in a nutrient cycle are particularly difficult to define as endpoints, because what constitutes an adverse effect on a process is dependent on the rates of others. Microbial tests may be used as evidence in an assessment of plant production, but the dependence of plants on microbial processes is rarely considered. As assessment endpoints are better defined in the future, microbial ecologists and toxicologists should be provided with more direction for developing appropriate microbial tests.     

Framework for the Integration of Health and Ecological Risk Assessment

The World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have developed a collaborative partnership to foster integration of assessment approaches for human health and ecological risks. This paper presents the framework developed by that group. Integration provides coherent expressions of assessment results, incorporates the interdependence of humans and the environment, uses sentinel organisms, and improves the efficiency and quality of assessments relative to independent human health and ecological risk assessments. The paper describes how integration can occur within each component of risk assessment, and communicates the benefits of integration at each point. The goal of this effort is to promote the use of this internationally accepted guidance as a basis for harmonization of risk assessment.     

Can Ecological Receptors Really Be At Risk?

Birds and mammals at hazardous waste sites are routinely modeled for their potential to display harmful toxicological effects as a result of their exposures to contaminants. Although standard desktop measures of the potential for toxicological endpoints to be reached commonly suggest that these receptors should be at ill health (e.g., experiencing reproductive impairment), evidence is lacking from the field that such effects are occurring. Plausibly, the excessive time lapse (frequently several decades) from contaminant release event to site ecological risk assessment, can explain the disconnect. Aided by their relatively brief life spans, these modeled ecological receptors have produced multiple generations to date and may have outbred the chemical stress. In light of the absence of observed health impacts in birds and mammals since the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, there may be no need to continue assessing the health of these species. Additionally, given the very few reported instances of observed health effects at terrestrial sites, it may be prudent to replace risk assessment with impact assessment as the essence of a revamped ecological assessment process.     

A Procedure for Ecological Tiered Assessment of Risks (PETAR)

Several procedures for Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) have been suggested. The use of these existing procedures often relies on availability of existing data and/or on large resources for acquisition of new ones. This paper presents a three-tiered procedure for retrospective evaluation of risks adapted to limited resources and scarce background information of relevance for risk assessments, such as in developing countries. The tiers require successively more detailed investigations. The approach assures that resources available for site-specific investigations are directed towards well-formulated questions raised during previous stages of the assessment. The first tier, the preliminary assessment, is a qualitative evaluation of existing information on anthropogenic stressors, sources of stressors and expected ecological effects. The second tier is a regional risk assessment; a semi-quantitative evaluation of ecological risks, over large geographical areas, which results in a ranking of sources and stressors having the greatest potential for ecological impact and ranking of subareas inside the study area more likely to be impacted. The final tier is a site-specific and quantitative risk assessment, at a smaller scale and requiring more resources, that incorporates methodologies for establishing causality between exposure to multiple stressors and effects on specific endpoints of ecological and societal relevance.     

生态风险评价及研究进展

生态风险是当前环境管理研究领域中的一个热点问题,其研究着重关注化学、物理和生物的胁迫因子可能对生态系统或其组分的有害影响.生态风险评价对科学制定环境管理决策有着重要的意义.要对生态系统进行有效地管理,必须预测不利生态影响发生的可能性及后果,减小其对于生态系统或某些组分的损害程度.本文对生态风险评价的研究方法、工具以及研究趋势进行了综述,指出了目前生态风险评价中还需要进一步加强的研究领域,认为在当前城市化水平不断提高的情况下要关注城市生态风险,并针对存在的一些问题提出了今后的研究展望.     

多类型保护地生态承载力核算模型及应用

生态承载力核算是进行保护地科学保护和有效利用的重要基础。多类型保护地是多种类型的保护地分布集中、相邻相连、交叉重叠的地理空间。研究将多类型保护地功能空间与生态系统服务相对应,划分为生态空间、生产空间、生活空间和游憩空间,在此基础上将多类型保护地生态承载力定义为生态系统在这四类空间中维持其重要生态系统服务功能的能力,并将其划分为自然基础承载力、社会经济活动承载力以及游憩承载力,构建了适用于多类型保护地的生态承载力核算框架模型。以三江源国家公园黄河源园区为案例区,进行了生态承载力核算。研究能够为多类型保护地经济建设规模、结构与布局优化调控研究提供科学依据。     

Ecological Indicators in Risk Assessment: Workshop Summary

Ecological indicators can be defined as relatively simple measurements that relay scientific information about complex ecosystems. Such indicators are used to characterize risk in ecological risk assessment (ERA) and to mark progress toward resource management goals. In late 1997, scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and from the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) held a workshop to explore opportunities for collaborative research and scientific exchange on the development and application of ecological indicators. Several scientific challenges were identified as they relate to problem formulation, exposure and effects assessment, and risk characterization. Chief among these were a better understanding of multiple stressors (both chemical and non-chemical), characterization of reference sites and natural variability, extrapolation of measures to ecologically relevant scales, development of comprehensive, ecosystem-based models that incorporate multiple stressors and receptors, and a consistent system for evaluating ecological indicators.     

Improving the Use of Toxicity Reference Values in Wildlife Food Chain Modeling and Ecological Risk Assessment

Ecological risk assessments often include mechanistic food chain models based on toxicity reference values (TRVs) and a hazard quotient approach. TRVs intended for screening purposes or as part of a larger weight-of-evidence (WOE) assessment are readily available. However, our experience suggests that food chain models using screening-level TRVs often form the primary basis for risk management at smaller industrial sites being redeveloped for residential or urban parkland uses. Iterative improvement of a food chain model or the incorporation of multiple lines of evidence for these sites are often impractical from a cost-benefit perspective when compared to remedial alternatives. We recommend risk assessors examine the assumptions and factors in the TRV derivation process, and where appropriate, modify the TRVs to improve their ecological relevance. Five areas where uncertainty likely contributes to excessively conservative hazard quotients are identified for consideration.     

Critique on the Use of the Standardized Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test for First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides

Avian risk assessments for rodenticides are often driven by the results of standardized acute oral toxicity tests without regards to a toxicant's mode of action and time course of adverse effects. First generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) generally require multiple feedings over several days to achieve a threshold concentration in tissue and cause adverse effects. This exposure regimen is much different than that used in the standardized acute oral toxicity test methodology. Median lethal dose values derived from standardized acute oral toxicity tests underestimate the environmental hazard and risk of FGARs. Caution is warranted when FGAR toxicity, physiological effects, and pharmacokinetics derived from standardized acute oral toxicity testing are used for forensic confirmation of the cause of death in avian mortality incidents and when characterizing FGARs’ risks to free-ranging birds.