New perspectives in ecotoxicology

The task of regulating potentially harmful chemicals in the environment is presently hindered by the lack of appropriate concepts and methods for evaluating the effects of anthropogenic chemicals on ecosystems. Toxicity tests at the molecular and physiological levels have been used successfully as indicators of adverse effects on test organisms and have been extrapolated to humans to establish a basis for risk assessment. However, laboratory measurements of effects upon individuals do not translate readily into potential effects upon natural populations, in part because natural populations interact with other populations and with the physical environment. Even more difficult to assess are the deleterious impacts of anthropogenic chemicals on ecosystems, because of effects on species interactions, diversity, nutrient cycling, productivity, climatic changes, and other processes.Effects on ecosystems resulting from chemical stresses are outside the realm of classical toxicology, and an ecosystem-level perspective is essential for the consideration of such effects; but the science that deals with ecosystem-level effects,ecotoxicology, is still developing. This article synthesizes the topics discussed at a workshop on ecotoxicology held by the Ecosystems Research Center at Cornell University. Topics covered include: the regulatory framework in which ecotoxicological research must be applied; ecosystem modification of toxicant fate and transport; how ecosystem composition, structure, and function are influenced by chemicals; methods currently available for predicting the effects of chemicals at the ecosystem level; and recommendations on research needs to enhance the state of the science of ecotoxicology.     

A conceptual model for assessing ecological risk to water quality function of bottomland hardwood forests

Ecological risk assessment provides a methodology for evaluating the threats to ecosystem function associated with environmental perturbations or stressors. This report documents the development of a conceptual model for assessing the ecological risk to the water quality function (WQF) of bottomland hardwood riparian ecosystems (BHRE) in the Tifton-Vidalia upland (TVU) ecoregion of Georgia. Previus research has demonstrated that mature BHRE are essential to maintaining water quality in this portion of the coastal plain. The WQF of these ecosystems is considered an assessment endpoit—an ecosystem function or set of functions that society chooses to value as evidenced by laws, regulations, or common usage. Stressors operate on ecosystems at risk through an exposure scenario to produce ecological effects that are linked to loss of the desired function or assessment end point. The WQF of BHRE is at risk because of the ecological and environmental quality effects of a suite of chemical, physical, and biological stressors. The stressors are related to nonpoint source pollution from adjacent land uses, especially agriculture; the conversion of BHRE to other land uses; and the encroachment of domestic animals into BHRE. Potential chemical, physical, and biological stressors to BHRE are identified, and the methodology for evaluating appropriate exposure scenarios is discussed. Field-scale and watershed-scale measurement end points of most use in assessing the effects of stressors on the WQF are identified and discussed. The product of this study is a conceptual model of how risks to the WQF of BHRE are produced and how the risk and associated uncertainties can be quantified.     

土壤污染风险评价研究进展

随着工业化和城镇化快速发展,土壤污染带来的人体健康和生态风险日益凸显.本文针对我国土壤污染环境风险评价体系在风险管控中的缺失问题,系统总结了国内外土壤污染的风险研究发展成果,按照土壤污染的人体健康风险和生态风险,分别进行评价方法、评价标准和管理实践的总结与评述.文章着重指出:土壤污染风险评价在生态系统水平及区域流域尺度上缺失,评价方法未能与污染物存在形态完全匹配,评价指标还不能覆盖大部分重金属和有机物,健康风险与生态风险还没有实现综合评价.     

毒害污染物生态风险评价模型研究进展

随着化学品的使用种类和数量日益增加,有毒有害污染物的生态效应逐渐受到重视.生态风险评价模型作为较好的科研和管理技术工具,被越来越广泛地用于扩散到环境中化学物质的生态风险评价中;欧美等发达国家和地区已经建立了多个生态风险评价的模型,并投入到实际应用中.本研究系统综述和总结了毒害污染物生态风险评价模型的构建方法、种类、结构以及特征,归纳了重金属和有机污染物等主要毒害物质的风险评价模型发展状况,比较了几种较为成熟的风险评价模型的具体模块和特点,分析了模型在生态风险评价中的应用以及不足之处,在总结我国生态风险评价模型的研究方向和趋势的基础上,提出模型研究和发展的具体建议.     

Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy

Retrospective ecological risk assessment, restoration, natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) and managing ecosystems all require having a baseline. This policy and practice paper explores the factors that influence baseline selection, and it is suggested that ecological resources would best be served by: (1) integrating NRDA considerations into both future land-use planning and remediation/restoration; (2) selecting a baseline for NRDA that approximates the land-use conditions at the time of occupation (or a preferred ecosystem); and (3) integrating both the positive and negative aspects of industrial occupation into restoration decisions, baseline selection and NRDA. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), natural resource damages are assessed for injuries incurred since 1980 due to releases, but the release itself may have occurred before 1980. The paper uses the Department of Energy as a case study to examine NRDA and the management of ecosystems. Releases occurred at many DOE sites from the 1950s to the 1980s during nuclear bomb production. It is suggested that the DOE has been responsible not only for injuries to natural resources that occurred as a result of releases, but for significant ecosystem recovery since DOE occupation, because some lands were previously farmed or industrialized. Natural resource injuries due to releases occurred simultaneously with ecosystem recovery that resulted from DOE occupation. While the 1980 date is codified in CERCLA law as the time after which damages can be assessed, baseline can be defined as the conditions the natural resources would have been in today, but for the release of the hazardous substance. It is also suggested that NRDA considerations should be incorporated into the remediation and restoration process at DOE sites, thereby negating the need for formal NRDA following restoration, and reducing the final NRDA costs.     

疏浚底泥生态毒理性风险分析方法的研究进展

疏浚底泥土地利用应该尽可能避免对施用土壤、周围地表水及地下水的污染,通过生物聚积试验和急性、亚急性毒性试验考查底泥对水及土壤中生物、植物发芽生长的影响,通过渗滤试验评价其对地下水层的污染。疏浚底泥土地利用前,其生态毒理性风险分析的方法包括风险简化评价和风险详细评价。通常简化评价方法用于估计底泥土地利用对生态系统影响程度;详细评价法进一步通过生物毒性试验和柱状渗滤试验来确定其生态毒理性影响,界定其风险特性。     

A method for assessing environmental risk: A case study of Green Bay,Lake Michigan,USA

The Science Advisory Board of the US Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that risk reduction strategies become the centerpiece of environmental protection. The goal in developing such strategies is to identify opportunities for greatest reduction of ecological risks. This is a perspective that is significantly more comprehensive than the traditional focus on human health risks arising from environmental degradation. The identification of ecological risks upon which environmental protection efforts should be focused requires an ecological risk assessment methodology that is based on anthropogenic stressors affecting an ecosystem and a set of impaired use criteria. A methodology based on this concept is developed and discussed in this article. The methodology requires that risk values be assigned to each ecosystem stressor-impaired use pair that reflect the degree to which the given stressor contributes to ecosystem risk as measured by the given impaired use criterion. Once these data are available, mathematical analyses based on concepts from fuzzy set theory are performed to obtain a ranking of ecosystem stressors. The methodology has been tested by applying it to a case study involving Green Bay of Lake Michigan. A workshop was held in which 11 persons with extensive knowledge of the Green Bay ecosystem determined risk values through a group-consensus process. The analytical portion of the methodology was then used to rank the ecosystem risks (stressors) from several perspectives, including prevention management and remediation management. The overall conclusion of the workshop participants was that the fuzzy set decision model is a useful and effective methodology for differentiating environmental risk.     

黄河中上游能源化工区重点产业发展战略生态风险评价

结合黄河中上游能源化工区重点产业发展战略生态风险宏观性、综合性、复杂性的特点,论文以生态风险景观评价方法及3S技术等为研究手段,综合考虑重点产业发展战略人为风险源及自然风险源,以生态风险受体和终点选择、风险源分析、暴露危害分析、生态风险综合评价及生态风险分区为评价步骤,揭示了重点产业发展战略潜在生态风险空间分异特征。研究结果表明：黄河中上游重点产业战略实施区可划分为三类生态风险监控区,生态风险重点监控区自然风险源分布集中,重点产业人为风险源和自然风险源交织在一起,极易发生生态风险放大效应,生态风险次重点监控区自然生态风险源分布较单一,局部重点产业人为风险源强度增强,将增加区域生态风险水平,生态风险监控区自然生态风险源分布范围较小,潜在生态风险水平相对较低。论文探索了战略环评生态风险评价方法和评价思路,为国内重点产业发展战略生态风险评价提供了借鉴。     

Ecological risk assessment of TBT in Ise Bay

An ecological risk assessment of tributyltin (TBT) in Ise Bay was conducted using the margin of exposure (MOE) method. The assessment endpoint was defined to protect the survival, growth and reproduction of marine organisms. Sources of TBT in this study were assumed to be commercial vessels in harbors and navigation routes. Concentrations of TBT in Ise Bay were estimated using a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model, an ecosystem model and a chemical fate model. Estimated MOEs for marine organisms for 1990 and 2008 were approximately 0.1-2.0 and over 100 respectively, indicating a declining temporal trend in the probability of adverse effects. The chemical fate model predicts a much longer persistence of TBT in sediments than in the water column. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor the harmful effects of TBT on benthic organisms.     

A paradigm for ecological risk assessment

The 1983 National Academy of Sciences paradigm for conducting human health risk assessment is considered with respect to ecological risk assessment. This four-step paradigm fails to capture key intrinsic differences between the two types of analysis, specifically: identity of risk targets and receptors; identity of the appropriate level of ecological organization at which the risk is expressed; variability of endpoint with respect to risk receptor; and the existence ofrisk cascades through ecological feedback loops. We propose an alternative paradigm that includes a preliminary step,receptor identification, in which chemical partitioning is combined with a conceptual model of the ecosystem to identify appropriate risk targets. In addition, we propose formal inclusion ofendpoint identification and explicit consideration of risk cascades in arelationship assessment in which interactive feedback loops are considered in an iterative process. The proposed paradigm preserves the steps of hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment (renamedresponse assessment) and risk characterization, although specific modifications are recommended.     

规划环评中的生态空间识别与生态影响评价探索——以长春新区发展规划为例

强化空间管理是规划环境影响评价优化空间开发、促进"多规合一"的新要求。同时,探索生态空间管控体系是国土空间规划的重点任务之一。本文以长春新区发展规划为例,提出前端空间引导、后端影响调控的生态空间管理体系。前端通过生态系统评价和生态空间识别,提出生态保护红线划定建议方案,确定开发"底线"。后端通过InVEST生境质量评价技术,对生境退化度及生境质量进行空间评价,识别生境威胁源影响区域,提出优化空间布局的规划调控建议。研究表明:耕地是新区发生变化幅度最为显著的用地类型,纳入生态空间管控的用地约占16.2%。其中,15.8%的用地建议纳入生态保护红线进行管理。未来城市开发对生境有一定影响,整体生境质量平均值由0.401下降至0.328。     

GEP核算：理论内涵与现实挑战

当前学术界对于GEP的概念内涵和核算方法仍在探索之中,而地方实践已然走在理论研究之前。GEP核算是生态服务价值的货币化评价,主要是为了科学认识生态系统服务的潜在价值,不等同于生态服务价值的市场显现;核算的出发点是为了更好保护自然资本,而非生态产品价值转化。GEP核算通过货币化评价生态服务价值,将自然资本保护更好地纳入经济社会发展决策,为完善生态补偿机制、进行生态文明绩效考核、引导人造资本和人力资本进入生态产业化提供重要参考依据。GEP和GDP都是流量,将GEP直接转化为GDP在逻辑上不成立。如何使GEP核算更好地服务于生态产品价值实现,需要在理论上厘清逻辑关联,在实践中明晰政策边界。     

西湖和东苕溪沉积物重金属化学形态分析

不同赋存形态重金属的环境行为和生态效应不同,水体沉积物中重金属的迁移转化及其潜在环境危害更大程度上取决于其赋存形态.本研究在西湖和东苕溪设置12个采样点采集沉积物样品,采用改进BCR分步提取法,提取了重金属污染物的4种化学形态,分别为弱酸提取态、可还原态、可氧化态及残渣态.结果表明:沉积物中Cd以弱酸提取态为主,对外界...     

Improving the TMDL Process Using Watershed Risk Assessment Principles

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) evaluates potential causal relationships between multiple sources and stressors and impacts on valued ecosystem components. ERAs applied at the watershed scale have many similarities to the place-based analyses that are undertaken to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), in which linkages are established between stressors, sources, and water quality standards, including support of designated uses. TMDLs focus on achieving water quality standards associated with attainment of designated uses. In attempting to attain the water quality standard, many TMDLs focus on the stressor of concern rather than the ecological endpoint or indicators of the designated use that the standard is meant to protect. A watershed ecological risk assessment (WERA), at least in theory, examines effects of most likely stressors, as well as their probable sources in the watershed, to prioritize management options that will most likely result in meeting environmental goals or uses. Useful WERA principles that can be applied to TMDL development include: development and use of comprehensive conceptual models in the Problem Identification step of TMDLs; use of a transparent process for selecting Numeric Targets for TMDLs based on assessment endpoints derived from the management goal or designated use under consideration; analysis of co-occurring stressors likely to cause beneficial use impairment based on the conceptual model; use of explicit uncertainty analyses in the Linkage Analysis step of TMDL development; and frequent stakeholder interactions throughout the process. WERA principles are currently most applicable to those TMDLs in which there is no numeric standard and, therefore, indicators and targets need to be developed, such as many nutrient or sediment TMDLs. WERA methods can also be useful in determining TMDL targets in situations where simply targeting the water quality standard may re-attain the numeric criterion but not the broader designated use. Better incorporation of problem formulation principles from WERA into the TMDL development process would be helpful in improving the scientific rigor of TMDLs.     

Realizing the Potential of Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Relating Ecological Changes to Economic Benefits

Increasingly government agencies are seeking to quantify the outcomes of proposed policy options in terms of ecosystem service benefits, yet conflicting definitions and ad hoc approaches to measuring ecosystem services have created confusion regarding how to rigorously link ecological change to changes in human well-being. Here, we describe a step-by-step framework for producing ecological models and metrics that can effectively serve an economic-benefits assessment of a proposed change in policy or management. A focus of the framework is developing comparable units of ecosystem goods and services to support decision-making, even if outcomes cannot be monetized. Because the challenges to translating ecological changes to outcomes appropriate for economic analyses are many, we discuss examples that demonstrate practical methods and approaches to overcoming data limitations. The numerous difficult decisions that government agencies must make to fairly use and allocate natural resources provides ample opportunity for interdisciplinary teams of natural and social scientists to improve methods for quantifying changes in ecosystem services and their effects on human well-being. This framework is offered with the intent of promoting the success of such teams as they support managers in evaluating the equivalency of ecosystem service offsets and trades, establishing restoration and preservation priorities, and more generally, in developing environmental policy that effectively balances multiple perspectives.     

Ecological risk and accessibility analysis to assess the impact of roads under Habitats Directive

We propose a method for the appropriate assessment of adverse effects of roads in compliance with the European Union Habitats Directive. The method incorporates an analysis of ecological risk of edge effects by the proposed roads with the related increase in accessibility. The method was tested on 30 km of planned forest roads inside an 8,000-ha reserve included in two Natura 2000 sites. As a result, the cumulative effect of 19 road segments was judged as not significantly affecting the integrity of the sites, although they made accessible an extra 314 ha. On the basis of the accessibility calculation, 20 ha of land were set aside from forest exploitation as a mandatory mitigation measure. The method objectively determined the cumulative adverse effects, enabled comparison of plan revisions and alternatives and proved to measure direct and indirect significant effects with a realistic effort in terms of field survey and geographic information system processing.     

Perspectives of the Scientific Community on the Status of Ecological Risk Assessment

/ Views from a wide variety of practicing environmental professionals on the current status of ecological risk assessment (ERA) indicate consensus and divergence of opinion on the utility and practice of risk assessment. Central to the debate were the issues of whether ERA appropriately incorporates ecological and scientific principle into its conceptual paradigm. Advocates argue that ERA effectively does both, noting that much of the fault detractors find with the process has more to do with its practice than its purpose. Critics argue that failure to validate ERA predictions and the tendency to over-simplify ecological principles compromise the integrity of ERA and may lead to misleading advice on the appropriate responses to environmental problems. All authors felt that many improvements could be made, including validation, better definition of the ecological questions and boundaries of ERA, improved harmonization of selected methods, and improvements in the knowledge base. Despite identified deficiencies, most authors felt that ERA was a useful process undergoing evolutionary changes that will inevitably determine the range of environmental problems to which it can be appropriately applied. The views expressed give ERA a cautious vote of approval and highlight many of the critical strengths and weaknesses in one of our most important environmental assessment tools.KEY WORDS: Ecological risk assessment; Ecology; Probability     

Establishing standards and assessment criteria for ecological instream flow needs in agricultural regions of Canada

Agricultural land use can place heavy demands on regional water resources, strongly influencing the quantity and timing of water flows needed to sustain natural ecosystems. The effects of agricultural practices on streamflow conditions are multifaceted, as they also contribute to the severity of impacts arising from other stressors within the river ecosystem. Thus, river scientists need to determine the quantity of water required to sustain important aquatic ecosystem components and ecological services, to support wise apportionment of water for agricultural use. It is now apparent that arbitrarily defined minimum flows are inadequate for this task because the complex habitat requirements of the biota, which underpin the structure and function of a river ecosystem, are strongly influenced by predictable temporal variations in flow. We present an alternative framework for establishing a first-level, regional ecological instream flow needs standard based on adoption of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration/Range of Variability Approach as a broadly applicable hydrological assessment tool, coupling this to the Canadian Ecological Flow Index which assesses ecological responses to hydrological alteration. By explicitly incorporating a new field-based ecological assessment tool for small agricultural streams, we provide a necessary verification of altered hydrology that is broadly applicable within Canada and essential to ensure the continuous feedback between the application of flow management criteria and ecological condition.