Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27541951›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2017

Using ecological production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services.

Randall Jf Bruins, Timothy J Canfield, Clifford Duke, Larry Kapustka, Amanda M Nahlik, Ralf B Schäfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Estimating the benefits of stream water quality improvements in urbanizing watersheds: An ecological production function approach.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Ecosystem services in risk assessment and management.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 7 countries.

Randall Jf BruinsUS Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Ecological Exposure Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Timothy J CanfieldUS Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division, Ada, Oklahoma.
Clifford DukeEcological Society of America, Washington, DC, USA.
Larry KapustkaLK Consultancy, Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada.
Amanda M NahlikKenyon College, Department of Biology, Gambier, Ohio, USA.
Ralf B SchäferQuantitative Landscape Ecology, Institute for Environmental Sciences, University Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Environmental Protection Agency · USCentral Ground Water Board · INEcological Society of America · USInstitute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences · SK

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological production functions (EPFs) link ecosystems, stressors, and management actions to ecosystem services (ES) production. Although EPFs are acknowledged as being essential to improve environmental management, their use in ecological risk assessment has received relatively little attention. Ecological production functions may be defined as usable expressions (i.e., models) of the processes by which ecosystems produce ES, often including external influences on those processes. We identify key attributes of EPFs and discuss both actual and idealized examples of their use to inform decision making. Whenever possible, EPFs should estimate final, rather than intermediate, ES. Although various types of EPFs have been developed, we suggest that EPFs are more useful for decision making if they quantify ES outcomes, respond to ecosystem condition, respond to stressor levels or management scenarios, reflect ecological complexity, rely on data with broad coverage, have performed well previously, are practical to use, and are open and transparent. In an example using pesticides, we illustrate how EPFs with these attributes could enable the inclusion of ES in ecological risk assessment. The biggest challenges to ES inclusion are limited data sets that are easily adapted for use in modeling EPFs and generally poor understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver the ES. We conclude by advocating for the incorporation into EPFs of added ecological complexity and greater ability to represent the trade-offs among ES. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:52-61. © 2016 SETAC.

Indexed as

Ecological and Environmental PhenomenaConservation of Natural ResourcesDecision MakingEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentDecision makingEcological modelFinal ecosystem servicesPesticidesStressors

Identifiers

PMID27541951
PMCPMC6089041
OpenAlexW2507656777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.