全欧洲大型无脊椎动物群对铜和吡虫啉敏感性的空间趋势

IF 6 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer
{"title":"全欧洲大型无脊椎动物群对铜和吡虫啉敏感性的空间趋势","authors":"Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer","doi":"10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC<sub>5</sub>) in each assemblage. Predicted <span>\\(H{C}_{5}\\)</span> values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median <span>\\(H{C}_{5}\\)</span> values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":546,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Europe-wide spatial trends in copper and imidacloprid sensitivity of macroinvertebrate assemblages\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC<sub>5</sub>) in each assemblage. Predicted <span>\\\\(H{C}_{5}\\\\)</span> values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median <span>\\\\(H{C}_{5}\\\\)</span> values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

接触农药和药物等合成化学品会在广泛的空间范围内影响淡水群落。这种风险通常在前瞻性环境风险评估(ERA)中进行管理。ERA 依靠通用方法、少数标准测试生物和安全系数来考虑不确定性,确定假定对生态系统构成低风险的浓度。目前,该程序忽略了不同生态系统类型在集合敏感性方面的潜在差异,并为每种化合物推荐了单一的低风险浓度。生态系统类型之间的集合体敏感性是否存在系统性差异或差异的大小目前尚不清楚。因此,阐明对化学物质敏感性的空间模式可以提高ERA的精确度,缩小生态学中的一个基本知识缺口--哈钦森缺口。我们分析了欧洲不同大类河流中实地采样的大型无脊椎动物集合体之间的分类更替是否会导致集合体对铜和吡虫啉敏感性的系统性差异。我们使用了一个广泛的欧洲大型无脊椎动物集合组成数据库,并采用了一个分级物种敏感性分布模型来预测每个集合中对 5%的类群有害的浓度(HC5)。预测的 \(H{C}_{5}\)值相差几个数量级。然而,95% 最高密度区间内的变化仍保持在一个数量级内。不同河流类型之间的差异在吡虫啉方面很小,而在铜方面则略高。河流类型特定的 \(H{C}_{5}\)中值之间的最大差异为 3.1 倍。这一差异水平低于欧洲食品安全局建议的评估系数,因此将被纳入当前的植物保护产品ERA。我们的结论是,在欧洲范围内,河流大类之间在分类组成上的差异会导致大型无脊椎动物群对受评估化学品的敏感性出现相对较小的差异。然而,生物利用率和多胁迫环境的系统性差异并未得到评估,这可能会加剧现实世界生态系统中不同河流类型之间化学品生态效应的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Europe-wide spatial trends in copper and imidacloprid sensitivity of macroinvertebrate assemblages

Europe-wide spatial trends in copper and imidacloprid sensitivity of macroinvertebrate assemblages

Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC5) in each assemblage. Predicted \(H{C}_{5}\) values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median \(H{C}_{5}\) values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe Environmental Science-Pollution
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation. ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation. ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation. Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues. Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信