On Developing Bioindicators for Human and Ecological Health

Risk assessors and risk managersgenerally either examine ecological health (usingbioindicators) or human health (using biomarkers ofexposure or effect). In this paper we suggest thatit is possible and advantageous to developbioindicators that can be used to assess exposureand effect for both human and non-human receptors. We describe the characteristics of suitablebioindicators for both human and ecological health,using mourning doves (Zenaida macroura),raccoons (Procyon lotor), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) as examples, and list thegeneral characteristics of other species that wouldmake them useful indicators for assessing both humanand ecological health. Bioindicators can beused cross-sectionally to assess the status ofecosystems and risk as well as longitudinally formonitoring changes or evaluating remediation. Forboth human and ecological risk assessment, there arethree sets of characteristics to consider whenselecting bioindicators: biological relevance,methodological relevance, and societal relevance. An indicator which fails to fulfill these is notlikely to be considered cost-effective and is likelyto be abandoned. The indicator should be readilymeasured and must measure an important range ofimpacts. For long-term support of a bioindicator,the indicator should be easily understood, and becost effective. We suggest that bioindicators thatcan also be used for both ecological and humanhealth risk assessment are optimal.     

Differences in Predators of Artificial and Real Songbird Nests: Evidence of Bias in Artificial Nest Studies

Abstract:  In the past two decades, many researchers have used artificial nests to measure relative rates of nest predation. Recent comparisons show that real and artificial nests may not be depredated at the same rates, but no one has examined the mechanisms underlying these patterns. We determined differences in predator-specific predation rates of real and artificial nests. We used video cameras to monitor artificial nests baited with quail and plasticine eggs and Field Sparrow ( Spizella pusilla ) and Indigo Bunting ( Passerina cyanea ) nests in field habitats in central Missouri (U.S.A.). Although daily predation estimates (all predators pooled) were similar between artificial and real nests, predators differed substantially in their depredation of artificial versus real nests. Snakes were the major predator at real nests, and raccoons ( Procyon lotor) were the major predator at artificial nests. We found strong support for models that distinguished predation between two or among three predator groups and between artificial and real nests. There was no snake predation of artificial nests, and the odds of predation of artificial nests was 115–551% (95% confidence interval) and 2–154% of the odds of predation of real nests by mammals and birds, respectively. Artificial nests with plasticine eggs could not be used reliably to identify predators. In several cases plasticine eggs were marked by mice, and raccoons were recorded on video removing the quail egg. Because biases for artificial nests were positive for some predators and negative for other predators (and could be compensating), and potentially existed for all predator groups, conclusions based on artificial nest studies should be suspect even when there is evidence that overall predation rates are similar among real and artificial nests.