Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation
Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and char...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Integrated environmental assessment and management 2024-05, Vol.20 (3), p.658-673 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 673 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 658 |
container_title | Integrated environmental assessment and management |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Sample, Bradley E. Johnson, Mark S. Hull, Ruth N. Kapustka, Lawrence Landis, Wayne G. Murphy, Cheryl A. Sorensen, Mary Mann, Gary Gust, Kurt A. Mayfield, David B. Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter Munns, Wayne R. |
description | Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism‐level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population‐ and systems‐level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state‐of‐the‐science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population‐ and system‐level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658–673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Key Points
Emerging science in various disciplines can greatly improve risk assessments for wildlife.
Data collected from the use of new methods (e.g., adverse outcome pathways, “omics” technologies, models, etc.) must be considered in a range of outcomes, an |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ieam.4710 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2731718696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3041190831</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-11f5e0562b9015e9a911ace62bf081203d3d00cc511774f33ca901a0b3f884ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10DtPwzAUhmELgbgP_AFkiQWGwjlx0jhsVVUuAgQDTAyW65wUgxMXuwH135NS6IDEZFt69Ml6GTtAOEWA5MySrk_THGGNbWOWYU_khVhf3fN8i-3E-AqQikQkm2xL9EWSSYnb7PmG5ty8aOeomVDkuil5SR_k_LSmZha5bfindaWzFXEy3vmJNdrxYOMb1zFSjAt3zh-CHzuqeeVD3To9s77ZYxuVdpH2f85d9nQxehxe9W7vL6-Hg9ueEVJCD7HKCLJ-Mi4AMyp0gagNde8KJCYgSlECGJMh5nlaCWF0BzWMRSVlSiR22fFydxr8e0txpmobDTmnG_JtVEkuMEfZL_odPfpDX30bmu53SkCKWIAU2KmTpTLBxxioUtNgax3mCkEtiqtFcbUo3tnDn8V2XFO5kr-JO3C2BF1Gmv-_pK5Hg7vvyS8jkYpP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3041190831</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Sample, Bradley E. ; Johnson, Mark S. ; Hull, Ruth N. ; Kapustka, Lawrence ; Landis, Wayne G. ; Murphy, Cheryl A. ; Sorensen, Mary ; Mann, Gary ; Gust, Kurt A. ; Mayfield, David B. ; Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter ; Munns, Wayne R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sample, Bradley E. ; Johnson, Mark S. ; Hull, Ruth N. ; Kapustka, Lawrence ; Landis, Wayne G. ; Murphy, Cheryl A. ; Sorensen, Mary ; Mann, Gary ; Gust, Kurt A. ; Mayfield, David B. ; Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter ; Munns, Wayne R.</creatorcontrib><description>Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism‐level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population‐ and systems‐level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state‐of‐the‐science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population‐ and system‐level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658–673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Key Points
Emerging science in various disciplines can greatly improve risk assessments for wildlife.
Data collected from the use of new methods (e.g., adverse outcome pathways, “omics” technologies, models, etc.) must be considered in a range of outcomes, and it should be determined how such data can be used within current problem formulation (PF) frameworks.
Examples and considerations of how scientific advances are incorporated into PF in risk assessments for wildlife are provided considering a range of jurisdictional requirements and current policies in North America and Europe.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1551-3777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-3793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4710</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36325881</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Animals, Wild ; Data collection ; Ecological risk assessment ; Ecotoxicology ; Emerging science ; Environmental assessment ; Environmental Impact Assessment ; Environmental management ; Environmental risk ; Humans ; Integrated environmental assessment ; Jurisdiction ; Pesticides ; Pesticides - toxicity ; Problem formulation ; Public domain ; Research Design ; Risk assessment ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Toxicology ; Wildlife ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024-05, Vol.20 (3), p.658-673</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/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><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-11f5e0562b9015e9a911ace62bf081203d3d00cc511774f33ca901a0b3f884ee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-11f5e0562b9015e9a911ace62bf081203d3d00cc511774f33ca901a0b3f884ee3</cites></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.4710$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fieam.4710$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36325881$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sample, Bradley E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Mark S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hull, Ruth N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapustka, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landis, Wayne G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Cheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorensen, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mann, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gust, Kurt A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayfield, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munns, Wayne R.</creatorcontrib><title>Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation</title><title>Integrated environmental assessment and management</title><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><description>Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism‐level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population‐ and systems‐level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state‐of‐the‐science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population‐ and system‐level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658–673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Key Points
Emerging science in various disciplines can greatly improve risk assessments for wildlife.
Data collected from the use of new methods (e.g., adverse outcome pathways, “omics” technologies, models, etc.) must be considered in a range of outcomes, and it should be determined how such data can be used within current problem formulation (PF) frameworks.
Examples and considerations of how scientific advances are incorporated into PF in risk assessments for wildlife are provided considering a range of jurisdictional requirements and current policies in North America and Europe.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Animals, Wild</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Ecological risk assessment</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Emerging science</subject><subject>Environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental Impact Assessment</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental risk</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Integrated environmental assessment</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Pesticides</subject><subject>Pesticides - toxicity</subject><subject>Problem formulation</subject><subject>Public domain</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</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>eNp10DtPwzAUhmELgbgP_AFkiQWGwjlx0jhsVVUuAgQDTAyW65wUgxMXuwH135NS6IDEZFt69Ml6GTtAOEWA5MySrk_THGGNbWOWYU_khVhf3fN8i-3E-AqQikQkm2xL9EWSSYnb7PmG5ty8aOeomVDkuil5SR_k_LSmZha5bfindaWzFXEy3vmJNdrxYOMb1zFSjAt3zh-CHzuqeeVD3To9s77ZYxuVdpH2f85d9nQxehxe9W7vL6-Hg9ueEVJCD7HKCLJ-Mi4AMyp0gagNde8KJCYgSlECGJMh5nlaCWF0BzWMRSVlSiR22fFydxr8e0txpmobDTmnG_JtVEkuMEfZL_odPfpDX30bmu53SkCKWIAU2KmTpTLBxxioUtNgax3mCkEtiqtFcbUo3tnDn8V2XFO5kr-JO3C2BF1Gmv-_pK5Hg7vvyS8jkYpP</recordid><startdate>202405</startdate><enddate>202405</enddate><creator>Sample, Bradley E.</creator><creator>Johnson, Mark S.</creator><creator>Hull, Ruth N.</creator><creator>Kapustka, Lawrence</creator><creator>Landis, Wayne G.</creator><creator>Murphy, Cheryl A.</creator><creator>Sorensen, Mary</creator><creator>Mann, Gary</creator><creator>Gust, Kurt A.</creator><creator>Mayfield, David B.</creator><creator>Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter</creator><creator>Munns, Wayne R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</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></search><sort><creationdate>202405</creationdate><title>Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation</title><author>Sample, Bradley E. ; Johnson, Mark S. ; Hull, Ruth N. ; Kapustka, Lawrence ; Landis, Wayne G. ; Murphy, Cheryl A. ; Sorensen, Mary ; Mann, Gary ; Gust, Kurt A. ; Mayfield, David B. ; Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter ; Munns, Wayne R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3880-11f5e0562b9015e9a911ace62bf081203d3d00cc511774f33ca901a0b3f884ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Animals, Wild</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Ecological risk assessment</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Emerging science</topic><topic>Environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental Impact Assessment</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental risk</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Integrated environmental assessment</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Pesticides</topic><topic>Pesticides - toxicity</topic><topic>Problem formulation</topic><topic>Public domain</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sample, Bradley E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Mark S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hull, Ruth N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kapustka, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landis, Wayne G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Cheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorensen, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mann, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gust, Kurt A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayfield, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munns, Wayne R.</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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & 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>Sample, Bradley E.</au><au>Johnson, Mark S.</au><au>Hull, Ruth N.</au><au>Kapustka, Lawrence</au><au>Landis, Wayne G.</au><au>Murphy, Cheryl A.</au><au>Sorensen, Mary</au><au>Mann, Gary</au><au>Gust, Kurt A.</au><au>Mayfield, David B.</au><au>Ludwigs, Jan‐Dieter</au><au>Munns, Wayne R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation</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>658</spage><epage>673</epage><pages>658-673</pages><issn>1551-3777</issn><eissn>1551-3793</eissn><abstract>Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism‐level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population‐ and systems‐level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state‐of‐the‐science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population‐ and system‐level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658–673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Key Points
Emerging science in various disciplines can greatly improve risk assessments for wildlife.
Data collected from the use of new methods (e.g., adverse outcome pathways, “omics” technologies, models, etc.) must be considered in a range of outcomes, and it should be determined how such data can be used within current problem formulation (PF) frameworks.
Examples and considerations of how scientific advances are incorporated into PF in risk assessments for wildlife are provided considering a range of jurisdictional requirements and current policies in North America and Europe.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>36325881</pmid><doi>10.1002/ieam.4710</doi><tpages>16</tpages><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.658-673 |
issn | 1551-3777 1551-3793 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2731718696 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Animals Animals, Wild Data collection Ecological risk assessment Ecotoxicology Emerging science Environmental assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental management Environmental risk Humans Integrated environmental assessment Jurisdiction Pesticides Pesticides - toxicity Problem formulation Public domain Research Design Risk assessment Risk Assessment - methods Toxicology Wildlife Wildlife conservation Wildlife management |
title | Key challenges and developments in wildlife ecological risk assessment: Problem formulation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T23%3A13%3A54IST&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=Key%20challenges%20and%20developments%20in%20wildlife%20ecological%20risk%20assessment:%20Problem%20formulation&rft.jtitle=Integrated%20environmental%20assessment%20and%20management&rft.au=Sample,%20Bradley%20E.&rft.date=2024-05&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=658&rft.epage=673&rft.pages=658-673&rft.issn=1551-3777&rft.eissn=1551-3793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ieam.4710&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3041190831%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=3041190831&rft_id=info:pmid/36325881&rfr_iscdi=true |