Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment. (18th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Harrison, Laura J.; Pearson, Katie A.; Wheatley, Christopher J.; Hill, Jane K.; Maltby, Lorraine; Rivetti, Claudia; Speirs, Lucy; White, Piran C. L.
• Is Part Of: Integrated environmental assessment and management. Volume 18:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: 1135
• Page End: 1147
• Publication Date: 2022-01-18
• Subjects: Ecosystem function -- Ecosystem processes -- ERA -- Freshwater -- Functional traits; Environmental management -- Periodicals; Pollution -- Periodicals; Environmental toxicology -- Periodicals; Environmental risk assessment -- Periodicals; Environmental impact analysis -- Periodicals; 628
• DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4568
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1551-3777

Abstract

Abstract: 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). Key Points: Considering functional indicators in addition to structural indicators adds value to ERA, but wide variation in the use of the term "ecosystem function" limits implementation. We classify different types of potential functional indicators and argue it is important to distinguish between measures of processes and measures of the capacity for processes (i.e., species' functional traits). Some measures have great potential to be developed as functional indicators (such as rate of leaf litter breakdown, oxygen production, carbon dioxide consumption, and biomass production), but further study is needed before these measures can be implemented and interpreted within a regulatory context. It is valuable for ERA to include multiple types of indicators relevant to each function of interest (e.g., both rate of leaf litter breakdown and functional composition of macroinvertebrates), alongside structural indicators.