Short course organised by CREAMers
Introduction to population models for ecological risk assessment and their documentation using TRACE. Organised by Volker Grimm. Full day course 20.05.2012.
Sessions organised by CREAMers:
F – Risk assessment, risk management and regulation
F01 – Applying models to Risks Assessment: from the organism to the ecosystem level
Proposed chairs: Valery Forbes, Peter Goethals, James Wheeler
(Details)
F14 – Implementation of protection goals: Limits of current risk assessment and new approaches to solve old problems
Proposed chairs: Magnus Wang, Robert Luttik, Franz Streissl
(Details)
F15 – Landscape ecotoxicology and spatially explicit risk assessment
Proposed chairs: Andreas Focks, Ben Kefford, Ralf Schaefer
(Details)
F16 – Linking exposure to effects in environmental risk assessment
Proposed chairs: Theo Brock, Roman Ashauer
(Details)
F22 – Plants and chemicals in the environment: risk assessment, pest management and phytoremediation
Proposed chairs: Gertie Arts, Silvia Mohr, Udo Hommen
(Details)
F01- Applying models to Risks Assessment: from the organism to the ecosystem level
Proposed chairs: Valery Forbes1, Peter Goethals2, James Wheeler3
1University of Nebraska Lincoln, LINCOLN, United States of America
2Ghent University, GENT, Belgium
3Syngenta Ltd, BRACKNELL, United Kingdom
Description:
Models are widely discussed as a means for addressing issues in ecological risk assessments that cannot be easily addressed by experiments. Frequently named examples for the need of modeling approaches are the assessment of temporally and spatially varying exposure to pollutants, particularly pesticides, and assessment of risks for populations and higher levels of organization. A combination of toxicokinetic/-dynamic models, often originating from pharmacological / toxicological sttudies, and various kinds of population or ecosystem models can be valuable tools for such asssessments. This prompts the questions like: Which endpoints are relevant for populations and what level of impact on these endpoints is tolerable? Further, apical (integrative) and mechanistic endpoints to investigate specific modes/mechanisms of action (e.g. endocrine disruption) need to be weighted in the overall evaluation.
Development and the refinement of these models and, most importantly, their applicability for addressing the needs from the level of the organism up to the population and ecosystem level are vital for risk assessment and for a better protection of our environment. Datadriven, knowledge based and mechanistic approaches can serve as input , their combination might offer new levels of refinement.
The goal of the session is to present contributions in which actual applications of eco(toxi)cological models to different questions are described. It shall be discussed how and why the modeling approach was defined and how the model results were implemented in the risk assessment. Typical questions to be addressed are:
- How to address the relevant protection goal (choice of species, temporal and special scale of modeled scenario, …)
- Which model endpoints to be used for the risk assessment? (maximum effect, time to recovery, probability of recovery, …)
- How to consider uncertainties (assessment factor, stochastic modeling, …)
.
F14 – Implementation of protection goals: Limits of current risk assessment and new approaches to solve old problems
Proposed chairs:
Magnus Wang1, Robert Luttik2, Franz Streissl3
1RIFCON GmbH, HEIDELBERG, Germany
2National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, BILTHOVEN, The Netherlands
3Franz Streissl, Pesticide Unit (PPR), EFSA, PARMA, Italy
Description:
This session focuses on the question to which extent protection goals, recently defined by EFSA, are achieved by current risk assessment methodology and how risk assessment can be improved to meet protection goals better. Although protection goals are now well defined, it is sometimes uncertain if risk assessment methodology is suitable to assess these goals, i.e. if risk assessments are conservative enough to achieve protection goals or if they are more conservative than necessary for reaching the defined protection goal. Therefore, we would like to highlight areas in which alternative or new approaches could help to address protection goals in a scientifically better way, regarding both lower and higher tier risk assessment.
.
F15 – Landscape ecotoxicology and spatially explicit risk assessment
Proposed chairs:
Andreas Focks1, Ben Kefford2, Ralf Schaefer3
1Wageningen University, WAGENINGEN, The Netherlands
2University of Technology Sydney (UTS), SYDNEY, Australia
3University Koblenz Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, LANDAU, Germany
Description:
Natural ecosystems are often characterised by a high spatial and temporal variability (e.g. patch dynamics) that strongly influences ecological processes and can modify the exposure and effects of toxicants on organisms. While the spatial dimension has gained increasing attention in the exposure assessments, the effects assessment still largely ignores these aspects despite its relevance for a realistic prediction of effects.
Both ecological as chemical processes exhibit different qualities on a landscape scale as compared to standardized and one-dimensional test settings. In other terms, the persistence of ecological effects of chemicals in space and time can only be assessed when appropriate spatial and temporal scales are considered.
With respect to ecology, processes such as metapopulation dynamics, competition for best habitats and re-colonisation after stress are only observable on a larger spatial scale. Some of these ecological processes are strongly influencing ERA-relevant effect end-points such as local recovery after stress, resistance or robustness against effects. Moreover, it is highly interesting and maybe relevant to investigate if and how local population disturbances are propagated to larger spatial and temporal dimensions.
Considering the environmental dynamics of chemicals, fluctuating concentrations are a common part of the biotope of possibly affected organisms in anthropogenic landscapes. Different ways of introduction (e.g. point sources, per-capita input or spray-drift/runoff), followed by degradation and dilution processes as well as simply the spatial distribution of input and reception in a landscape can result in very complex chemical exposure patterns in space and time.
This session aims at advancing the inclusion of the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of natural systems in ecotoxicology. It will bring together researchers investigating the spatial and temporal dynamics in the assessment of exposure to and effects of toxicants using field studies and modelling as well as a range of methods including genetics, biomonitoring and multivariate statistics. This session is therefore important to spur collaborations in this emerging field of ecotoxicology. Therefore, the session will focus on (1) the analysis of chemical exposure patterns and/or related effects by the means of simulations or measurements on a spatially explicit scale and (2) aspects of spatial ecology that may influence ecological effects in the environment. Topics to be touched upon in this session will be useful for understanding processes that reveal only on a larger spatial and/or temporal scale and that are relevant for risk assessment. Presentations aiming at illustrating how spatially explicit approaches might be implemented in regulation and land management are also welcome.
F16 – Linking exposure to effects in environmental risk assessment
Proposed chair:
Theo Brock1, Roman Ashauer2
1Alterra, Wageningen UR, WAGENINGEN, The Netherlands
2Eawag, KASTANIENBAUM, Switzerland
Description:
A critical step in the prospective and retrospective ERA of toxicants is the linking of exposure and effects data. Lack of a clear conceptual basis for the interface between the environmental exposure and ecotoxicological effects may lead to a low overall scientific quality of ERA. The ecotoxicologically relevant type of concentration (ERC) needs to be consistently applied so that exposure and effect estimates can be compared and extrapolated as readily as possible. This session invites papers on:
- Bioavailability and spatio-temporal configuration of toxicants and organisms in the environment
- Exposure pattern and time to onset of effects, including latency
- Influence of time-variable exposure patterns on ecotoxicological effects
- Exposure-response reciprocity and the use of time weighted average (TWA) concentration in long-term risk assessment
- Toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics in ERA: experimentation and modeling.
F22 – Plants and chemicals in the environment: risk assessment, pest management and phytoremediation
Proposed chairs:
Gertie Arts1, Silvia Mohr2, Udo Hommen3
1Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Centre, WAGENINGEN, The Netherlands
2Federal Environment Agency, BERLIN, Germany
3Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology, SCHMALLENBERG, Germany
Description:
This session is organized by the SETAC Aquatic Macrophyte Ecotoxicology Advisory Group (AMEG) and welcomes scientific contributions that highlight one of three different aspects of the relationship between plants and chemicals in the environment. Despite the main focus on aquatic macrophytes, we also welcome scientific contributions on algae or terrestrial plants within the three topics:
Risk assessment: Macrophytes are a key-component of many aquatic ecosystems by providing several ecosystem services including and among others oxygen production, habitat and shelter for other species, food and clean water for animals and humans. Therefore macrophytes are more and more considered in the risk assessment of chemicals and this session will cover contributions related to ecotoxicological tests and field monitoring to assess chemical effects on macrophytes. The session discusses laboratory and field approaches and temporal-spatial extrapolation of plant data for inclusion in the risk assessment of chemicals.
Pest management: Macrophytes are pests if they become invasive species especially outside their original geographical distribution range. Examples of serious modifications of ecosystems by invasive plants have been reported from all over the world. The threats invasive species pose to their environment include several, hampering food production by aquatic ecosystems worldwide and degradation of aquatic ecosystems like lakes and wetlands among others. Therefore, sustainable management of alien invasive macrophyte species is a world-wide concern. This session will discuss new practices on how invasive species can be managed in a sustainable way, e.g. by selectively applied pesticides, by combined chemical and biological management regimes or by other sustainable management practices.
Phytoremediation: The third topic of the session intends to demonstrate the potential use of macrophytes for phytoremediation and risk mitigation purposes. Macrophytes change their chemical environment and take up and biodegrade contaminants thereby affecting concentrations of these compounds in aquatic ecosystems. This session will highlight these processes as demonstrated in experiments at laboratory and field-scales, and also discusses the application of those principles and processes in artificial wetlands and aquatic buffer zones where macrophytes can be used to reduce the input of pesticides and other contaminants due to run-off from agricultural areas into streams, ditches and rivers.
