Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment

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 r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Integrated environmental assessment and management 2022-09, Vol.18 (5), p.1135-1147
Hauptverfasser: Harrison, Laura J., Pearson, Katie A., Wheatley, Christopher J., Hill, Jane K., Maltby, Lorraine, Rivetti, Claudia, Speirs, Lucy, White, Piran C. L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1147
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1135
container_title Integrated environmental assessment and management
container_volume 18
creator Harrison, Laura J.
Pearson, Katie A.
Wheatley, Christopher J.
Hill, Jane K.
Maltby, Lorraine
Rivetti, Claudia
Speirs, Lucy
White, Piran C. L.
description 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 potenti
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ieam.4568
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2614229729</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2614229729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3488-100dd7d01c8fa39d64ae3c5f223f109436b919d40b38111b8aea741a50459f5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtOwzAQhi0EorwWXABZYgOLFj-TeIkqXhKIDawj155QlyQudqIKVhyBM3ISXApdILGxR55vPsnzI3RIyYgSws4c6GYkZFZsoB0qJR3yXPHNdZ3nA7Qb44wQwRln22jAhZKUErGD3i771nTOt7rGDejYB4hYRzz3HbSdS6-utc7ozoeIfYWtX7Sf7x_dFNJpg3YtNlNoElHj2KXhmAZwlYrpQncQMBhf-6fvfnDxObljgpok30dbla4jHPzce-jx8uJhfD28vb-6GZ_fDg0XRTFMP7Q2t4SaotJc2Uxo4EZWjPGKEiV4NlFUWUEmvKCUTgoNOhdUSyKkqqThe-hk5Z0H_9JD7MrGRQN1rVvwfSxZRgVjKmcqocd_0JnvQ9pNonJSKJrlkiXqdEWZ4GMMUJXz4BodXktKymUg5TKQchlIYo9-jP2kAbsmfxNIwNkKWLgaXv83lTcX53ffyi-RbpiS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2708916752</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Harrison, Laura J. ; Pearson, Katie A. ; Wheatley, Christopher J. ; Hill, Jane K. ; Maltby, Lorraine ; Rivetti, Claudia ; Speirs, Lucy ; White, Piran C. L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Laura J. ; Pearson, Katie A. ; Wheatley, Christopher J. ; Hill, Jane K. ; Maltby, Lorraine ; Rivetti, Claudia ; Speirs, Lucy ; White, Piran C. L.</creatorcontrib><description>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 &amp; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1551-3777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-3793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4568</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34951104</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aquatic ecosystems ; Breakdown ; Carbon dioxide ; Context ; Ecological effects ; Ecological function ; Ecological risk assessment ; Ecosystem function ; Ecosystem processes ; Ecosystems ; Environmental assessment ; Environmental impact ; Environmental Impact Assessment ; Environmental management ; ERA ; Freshwater ; Freshwater ecology ; Freshwater ecosystems ; Functional traits ; Indicators ; Inland water environment ; Integrated environmental assessment ; Leaf litter ; Leaves ; Macroinvertebrates ; Oxygen consumption ; Oxygen production ; Risk assessment ; Toxicology ; Zoobenthos</subject><ispartof>Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2022-09, Vol.18 (5), p.1135-1147</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC)</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC).</rights><rights>2022. 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><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3488-100dd7d01c8fa39d64ae3c5f223f109436b919d40b38111b8aea741a50459f5c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8550-2450 ; 0000-0003-3923-7083 ; 0000-0003-3817-4033 ; 0000-0002-7496-5775</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.4568$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fieam.4568$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,27931,27932,45581,45582</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34951104$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, Katie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheatley, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Jane K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maltby, Lorraine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivetti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speirs, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Piran C. L.</creatorcontrib><title>Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment</title><title>Integrated environmental assessment and management</title><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><description>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 &amp; 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.</description><subject>Aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>Breakdown</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Context</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Ecological function</subject><subject>Ecological risk assessment</subject><subject>Ecosystem function</subject><subject>Ecosystem processes</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Environmental Impact Assessment</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>ERA</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Freshwater ecology</subject><subject>Freshwater ecosystems</subject><subject>Functional traits</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Inland water environment</subject><subject>Integrated environmental assessment</subject><subject>Leaf litter</subject><subject>Leaves</subject><subject>Macroinvertebrates</subject><subject>Oxygen consumption</subject><subject>Oxygen production</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Zoobenthos</subject><issn>1551-3777</issn><issn>1551-3793</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtOwzAQhi0EorwWXABZYgOLFj-TeIkqXhKIDawj155QlyQudqIKVhyBM3ISXApdILGxR55vPsnzI3RIyYgSws4c6GYkZFZsoB0qJR3yXPHNdZ3nA7Qb44wQwRln22jAhZKUErGD3i771nTOt7rGDejYB4hYRzz3HbSdS6-utc7ozoeIfYWtX7Sf7x_dFNJpg3YtNlNoElHj2KXhmAZwlYrpQncQMBhf-6fvfnDxObljgpok30dbla4jHPzce-jx8uJhfD28vb-6GZ_fDg0XRTFMP7Q2t4SaotJc2Uxo4EZWjPGKEiV4NlFUWUEmvKCUTgoNOhdUSyKkqqThe-hk5Z0H_9JD7MrGRQN1rVvwfSxZRgVjKmcqocd_0JnvQ9pNonJSKJrlkiXqdEWZ4GMMUJXz4BodXktKymUg5TKQchlIYo9-jP2kAbsmfxNIwNkKWLgaXv83lTcX53ffyi-RbpiS</recordid><startdate>202209</startdate><enddate>202209</enddate><creator>Harrison, Laura J.</creator><creator>Pearson, Katie A.</creator><creator>Wheatley, Christopher J.</creator><creator>Hill, Jane K.</creator><creator>Maltby, Lorraine</creator><creator>Rivetti, Claudia</creator><creator>Speirs, Lucy</creator><creator>White, Piran C. L.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</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><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8550-2450</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3923-7083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3817-4033</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-5775</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202209</creationdate><title>Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment</title><author>Harrison, Laura J. ; Pearson, Katie A. ; Wheatley, Christopher J. ; Hill, Jane K. ; Maltby, Lorraine ; Rivetti, Claudia ; Speirs, Lucy ; White, Piran C. L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3488-100dd7d01c8fa39d64ae3c5f223f109436b919d40b38111b8aea741a50459f5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>Breakdown</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Context</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Ecological function</topic><topic>Ecological risk assessment</topic><topic>Ecosystem function</topic><topic>Ecosystem processes</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Environmental Impact Assessment</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>ERA</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Freshwater ecology</topic><topic>Freshwater ecosystems</topic><topic>Functional traits</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Inland water environment</topic><topic>Integrated environmental assessment</topic><topic>Leaf litter</topic><topic>Leaves</topic><topic>Macroinvertebrates</topic><topic>Oxygen consumption</topic><topic>Oxygen production</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Zoobenthos</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pearson, Katie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wheatley, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Jane K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maltby, Lorraine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivetti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speirs, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Piran C. L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</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><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, Laura J.</au><au>Pearson, Katie A.</au><au>Wheatley, Christopher J.</au><au>Hill, Jane K.</au><au>Maltby, Lorraine</au><au>Rivetti, Claudia</au><au>Speirs, Lucy</au><au>White, Piran C. L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment</atitle><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><date>2022-09</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1135</spage><epage>1147</epage><pages>1135-1147</pages><issn>1551-3777</issn><eissn>1551-3793</eissn><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 &amp; 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>34951104</pmid><doi>10.1002/ieam.4568</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8550-2450</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3923-7083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3817-4033</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-5775</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1551-3777
ispartof Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2022-09, Vol.18 (5), p.1135-1147
issn 1551-3777
1551-3793
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2614229729
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Aquatic ecosystems
Breakdown
Carbon dioxide
Context
Ecological effects
Ecological function
Ecological risk assessment
Ecosystem function
Ecosystem processes
Ecosystems
Environmental assessment
Environmental impact
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental management
ERA
Freshwater
Freshwater ecology
Freshwater ecosystems
Functional traits
Indicators
Inland water environment
Integrated environmental assessment
Leaf litter
Leaves
Macroinvertebrates
Oxygen consumption
Oxygen production
Risk assessment
Toxicology
Zoobenthos
title Functional measures as potential indicators of down‐the‐drain chemical stress in freshwater ecological risk assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T10%3A12%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Functional%20measures%20as%20potential%20indicators%20of%20down%E2%80%90the%E2%80%90drain%20chemical%20stress%20in%20freshwater%20ecological%20risk%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Integrated%20environmental%20assessment%20and%20management&rft.au=Harrison,%20Laura%20J.&rft.date=2022-09&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1135&rft.epage=1147&rft.pages=1135-1147&rft.issn=1551-3777&rft.eissn=1551-3793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ieam.4568&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2614229729%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2708916752&rft_id=info:pmid/34951104&rfr_iscdi=true