Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects

Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air‐breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While surviv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Integrated environmental assessment and management 2024-05, Vol.20 (3), p.725-748
Hauptverfasser: Rattner, Barnett A., Bean, Thomas G., Beasley, Val R., Berny, Philippe, Eisenreich, Karen M., Elliott, John E., Eng, Margaret L., Fuchsman, Phyllis C., King, Mason D., Mateo, Rafael, Meyer, Carolyn B., O'Brien, Jason M., Salice, Christopher J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 748
container_issue 3
container_start_page 725
container_title Integrated environmental assessment and management
container_volume 20
creator Rattner, Barnett A.
Bean, Thomas G.
Beasley, Val R.
Berny, Philippe
Eisenreich, Karen M.
Elliott, John E.
Eng, Margaret L.
Fuchsman, Phyllis C.
King, Mason D.
Mateo, Rafael
Meyer, Carolyn B.
O'Brien, Jason M.
Salice, Christopher J.
description Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air‐breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole‐animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, nonstandard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have the potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically based risk assessments to enhance the “eco” component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such nonstandard endpoints and indirect effects to postregistration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date, their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory‐ and field‐derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole‐animal data and simple hazard ratios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:725–748. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points Characterizations of adverse effects in ecological risk assessments focused on wildlife have generally relied on toxicity data for survival, growth, and reproduction for new chemical
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ieam.4806
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04425238v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3041190850</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-82d49e8c07a9bed44b2a9e7131d0dd02b5361bc7abbcf2c97ea54a48246a689c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1PGzEQhi1UxGcP_AFkqZdyCPhr197eIgQkUhA9FPVoeb2zxKl3ndq7hfx7NiQEqRInj0bPPJ7Ri9AZJZeUEHblwDSXQpF8Dx3RLKMjLgv-ZVdLeYiOU1oQIjjj7AAdcimoFIweofDb-cq7GjDY4MOTs8bj6NIfbFKClBpoO-xa3M0BM5o6bIdGH1c_8M8YGpdc-4Q7sPP2bRgS7sJ2cqhe3IcT6hpsl07Rfm18gq_b9wQ93t78up6MZg930-vxbGQFY_lIsUoUoCyRpiihEqJkpgBJOa1IVRFWZjynpZWmLG3NbCHBZMIIxURuclVYfoIuNt658XoZXWPiSgfj9GQ80-seEYJljKt_dGC_b9hlDH97SJ0eDrPgvWkh9EkzxTMmC6rEgH77D12EPrbDJZoTQWlBVEY-PrcxpBSh3m1AiV4npteJ6XViA3u-NfZlA9WOfI9oAK42wLPzsPrcpKc34_s35Sue_KBe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3041190850</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rattner, Barnett A. ; Bean, Thomas G. ; Beasley, Val R. ; Berny, Philippe ; Eisenreich, Karen M. ; Elliott, John E. ; Eng, Margaret L. ; Fuchsman, Phyllis C. ; King, Mason D. ; Mateo, Rafael ; Meyer, Carolyn B. ; O'Brien, Jason M. ; Salice, Christopher J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rattner, Barnett A. ; Bean, Thomas G. ; Beasley, Val R. ; Berny, Philippe ; Eisenreich, Karen M. ; Elliott, John E. ; Eng, Margaret L. ; Fuchsman, Phyllis C. ; King, Mason D. ; Mateo, Rafael ; Meyer, Carolyn B. ; O'Brien, Jason M. ; Salice, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><description>Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air‐breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole‐animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, nonstandard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have the potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically based risk assessments to enhance the “eco” component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such nonstandard endpoints and indirect effects to postregistration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date, their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory‐ and field‐derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole‐animal data and simple hazard ratios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:725–748. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points Characterizations of adverse effects in ecological risk assessments focused on wildlife have generally relied on toxicity data for survival, growth, and reproduction for new chemicals and pesticides. While exposure–response relationships for survival and reproduction will likely remain central to wildlife risk assessment in the near term, other endpoints at many levels of the biological organization have the potential to improve efficiency, reliability, and realism for the longer term. The value of new approach methodologies to ecotoxicological hazard assessment has been acknowledged for some time, but their development seems to have targeted aquatic species and phylogenetically lower forms, and applications for terrestrial wildlife are less apparent. We recommend increased attention to linkages of nonstandard molecular‐ to organism‐level endpoints to effects on wildlife at the population level, as well as to interactions at the community and ecosystem levels with a goal of preventing harmful effects of contaminants on wildlife populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1551-3777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-3793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4806</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37417421</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Amphibians ; Animals ; Animals, Wild ; Aquatic reptiles ; Biological effects ; Climate change ; Contaminants ; Ecological risk assessment ; Ecosystem ; Ecosystem services ; Ecotoxicology ; Environmental assessment ; Environmental Impact Assessment ; Environmental management ; Environmental Sciences ; Evaluation ; Food contamination ; Food supply ; Hazard assessment ; Humans ; Industrial pollution ; Infectious diseases ; Integrated environmental assessment ; Interspecific extrapolation ; Knowledge collection solutions ; Mammals ; Modernization ; New approach methodologies ; Nonstandard endpoints ; Pesticides ; Population modeling ; Prospective Studies ; Public domain ; Reptiles ; Reptiles &amp; amphibians ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk assessment ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Toxicants ; Toxicity ; Toxicity testing ; Toxicity tests ; Toxicology ; Wildlife ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024-05, Vol.20 (3), p.725-748</ispartof><rights>2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.</rights><rights>2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-82d49e8c07a9bed44b2a9e7131d0dd02b5361bc7abbcf2c97ea54a48246a689c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-82d49e8c07a9bed44b2a9e7131d0dd02b5361bc7abbcf2c97ea54a48246a689c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5007-3820</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fieam.4806$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fieam.4806$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37417421$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-04425238$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rattner, Barnett A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bean, Thomas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beasley, Val R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berny, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenreich, Karen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eng, Margaret L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchsman, Phyllis C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Mason D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Carolyn B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Jason M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salice, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><title>Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects</title><title>Integrated environmental assessment and management</title><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><description>Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air‐breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole‐animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, nonstandard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have the potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically based risk assessments to enhance the “eco” component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such nonstandard endpoints and indirect effects to postregistration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date, their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory‐ and field‐derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole‐animal data and simple hazard ratios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:725–748. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points Characterizations of adverse effects in ecological risk assessments focused on wildlife have generally relied on toxicity data for survival, growth, and reproduction for new chemicals and pesticides. While exposure–response relationships for survival and reproduction will likely remain central to wildlife risk assessment in the near term, other endpoints at many levels of the biological organization have the potential to improve efficiency, reliability, and realism for the longer term. The value of new approach methodologies to ecotoxicological hazard assessment has been acknowledged for some time, but their development seems to have targeted aquatic species and phylogenetically lower forms, and applications for terrestrial wildlife are less apparent. We recommend increased attention to linkages of nonstandard molecular‐ to organism‐level endpoints to effects on wildlife at the population level, as well as to interactions at the community and ecosystem levels with a goal of preventing harmful effects of contaminants on wildlife populations.</description><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Animals, Wild</subject><subject>Aquatic reptiles</subject><subject>Biological effects</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Ecological risk assessment</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental Impact Assessment</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Food contamination</subject><subject>Food supply</subject><subject>Hazard assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Industrial pollution</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Integrated environmental assessment</subject><subject>Interspecific extrapolation</subject><subject>Knowledge collection solutions</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Modernization</subject><subject>New approach methodologies</subject><subject>Nonstandard endpoints</subject><subject>Pesticides</subject><subject>Population modeling</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Public domain</subject><subject>Reptiles</subject><subject>Reptiles &amp; amphibians</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Toxicants</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Toxicity testing</subject><subject>Toxicity tests</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>1551-3777</issn><issn>1551-3793</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1PGzEQhi1UxGcP_AFkqZdyCPhr197eIgQkUhA9FPVoeb2zxKl3ndq7hfx7NiQEqRInj0bPPJ7Ri9AZJZeUEHblwDSXQpF8Dx3RLKMjLgv-ZVdLeYiOU1oQIjjj7AAdcimoFIweofDb-cq7GjDY4MOTs8bj6NIfbFKClBpoO-xa3M0BM5o6bIdGH1c_8M8YGpdc-4Q7sPP2bRgS7sJ2cqhe3IcT6hpsl07Rfm18gq_b9wQ93t78up6MZg930-vxbGQFY_lIsUoUoCyRpiihEqJkpgBJOa1IVRFWZjynpZWmLG3NbCHBZMIIxURuclVYfoIuNt658XoZXWPiSgfj9GQ80-seEYJljKt_dGC_b9hlDH97SJ0eDrPgvWkh9EkzxTMmC6rEgH77D12EPrbDJZoTQWlBVEY-PrcxpBSh3m1AiV4npteJ6XViA3u-NfZlA9WOfI9oAK42wLPzsPrcpKc34_s35Sue_KBe</recordid><startdate>202405</startdate><enddate>202405</enddate><creator>Rattner, Barnett A.</creator><creator>Bean, Thomas G.</creator><creator>Beasley, Val R.</creator><creator>Berny, Philippe</creator><creator>Eisenreich, Karen M.</creator><creator>Elliott, John E.</creator><creator>Eng, Margaret L.</creator><creator>Fuchsman, Phyllis C.</creator><creator>King, Mason D.</creator><creator>Mateo, Rafael</creator><creator>Meyer, Carolyn B.</creator><creator>O'Brien, Jason M.</creator><creator>Salice, Christopher J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-3820</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202405</creationdate><title>Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects</title><author>Rattner, Barnett A. ; Bean, Thomas G. ; Beasley, Val R. ; Berny, Philippe ; Eisenreich, Karen M. ; Elliott, John E. ; Eng, Margaret L. ; Fuchsman, Phyllis C. ; King, Mason D. ; Mateo, Rafael ; Meyer, Carolyn B. ; O'Brien, Jason M. ; Salice, Christopher J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4226-82d49e8c07a9bed44b2a9e7131d0dd02b5361bc7abbcf2c97ea54a48246a689c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Animals, Wild</topic><topic>Aquatic reptiles</topic><topic>Biological effects</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Ecological risk assessment</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental Impact Assessment</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Food contamination</topic><topic>Food supply</topic><topic>Hazard assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Industrial pollution</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Integrated environmental assessment</topic><topic>Interspecific extrapolation</topic><topic>Knowledge collection solutions</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Modernization</topic><topic>New approach methodologies</topic><topic>Nonstandard endpoints</topic><topic>Pesticides</topic><topic>Population modeling</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Public domain</topic><topic>Reptiles</topic><topic>Reptiles &amp; amphibians</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Toxicants</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Toxicity testing</topic><topic>Toxicity tests</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rattner, Barnett A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bean, Thomas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beasley, Val R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berny, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eisenreich, Karen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eng, Margaret L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuchsman, Phyllis C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Mason D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateo, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Carolyn B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Brien, Jason M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salice, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rattner, Barnett A.</au><au>Bean, Thomas G.</au><au>Beasley, Val R.</au><au>Berny, Philippe</au><au>Eisenreich, Karen M.</au><au>Elliott, John E.</au><au>Eng, Margaret L.</au><au>Fuchsman, Phyllis C.</au><au>King, Mason D.</au><au>Mateo, Rafael</au><au>Meyer, Carolyn B.</au><au>O'Brien, Jason M.</au><au>Salice, Christopher J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects</atitle><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><date>2024-05</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>725</spage><epage>748</epage><pages>725-748</pages><issn>1551-3777</issn><eissn>1551-3793</eissn><abstract>Despite advances in toxicity testing and the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air‐breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole‐animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, nonstandard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have the potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically based risk assessments to enhance the “eco” component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such nonstandard endpoints and indirect effects to postregistration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date, their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory‐ and field‐derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole‐animal data and simple hazard ratios. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:725–748. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points Characterizations of adverse effects in ecological risk assessments focused on wildlife have generally relied on toxicity data for survival, growth, and reproduction for new chemicals and pesticides. While exposure–response relationships for survival and reproduction will likely remain central to wildlife risk assessment in the near term, other endpoints at many levels of the biological organization have the potential to improve efficiency, reliability, and realism for the longer term. The value of new approach methodologies to ecotoxicological hazard assessment has been acknowledged for some time, but their development seems to have targeted aquatic species and phylogenetically lower forms, and applications for terrestrial wildlife are less apparent. We recommend increased attention to linkages of nonstandard molecular‐ to organism‐level endpoints to effects on wildlife at the population level, as well as to interactions at the community and ecosystem levels with a goal of preventing harmful effects of contaminants on wildlife populations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>37417421</pmid><doi>10.1002/ieam.4806</doi><tpages>24</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5007-3820</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1551-3777
ispartof Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024-05, Vol.20 (3), p.725-748
issn 1551-3777
1551-3793
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04425238v1
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Amphibians
Animals
Animals, Wild
Aquatic reptiles
Biological effects
Climate change
Contaminants
Ecological risk assessment
Ecosystem
Ecosystem services
Ecotoxicology
Environmental assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental management
Environmental Sciences
Evaluation
Food contamination
Food supply
Hazard assessment
Humans
Industrial pollution
Infectious diseases
Integrated environmental assessment
Interspecific extrapolation
Knowledge collection solutions
Mammals
Modernization
New approach methodologies
Nonstandard endpoints
Pesticides
Population modeling
Prospective Studies
Public domain
Reptiles
Reptiles & amphibians
Retrospective Studies
Risk assessment
Risk Assessment - methods
Toxicants
Toxicity
Toxicity testing
Toxicity tests
Toxicology
Wildlife
Wildlife management
title Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T18%3A48%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wildlife%20ecological%20risk%20assessment%20in%20the%2021st%20century:%20Promising%20technologies%20to%20assess%20toxicological%20effects&rft.jtitle=Integrated%20environmental%20assessment%20and%20management&rft.au=Rattner,%20Barnett%20A.&rft.date=2024-05&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=725&rft.epage=748&rft.pages=725-748&rft.issn=1551-3777&rft.eissn=1551-3793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ieam.4806&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E3041190850%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3041190850&rft_id=info:pmid/37417421&rfr_iscdi=true