Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28370293›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2017

A framework for predicting impacts on ecosystem services from (sub)organismal responses to chemicals.

Valery E Forbes, Chris J Salice, Bjorn Birnir, Randy J F Bruins, Peter Calow, Virginie Ducrot, Nika Galic, Kristina Garber, Bret C Harvey, Henriette Jager and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Role of Omics in the Application of Adverse Outcome Pathways for Chemical Risk Assessment.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2017
    Review
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

15 authors.

Valery E ForbesDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Chris J SaliceEnvironmental Science and Studies Program and Department of Biological Sciences, Towson University, Towson, Maryland, USA.
Bjorn BirnirCenter for Complex and Nonlinear Science and Department of Mathematics, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
Randy J F BruinsSystems Exposure Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Peter CalowHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Virginie DucrotCrop Science Division, Bayer, Monheim am Rhein, Germany.
Nika GalicDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Kristina GarberEnvironmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Bret C HarveyPacific Southwest Research Station, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Arcata, California.
Henriette JagerEnvironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Andrew KanarekEnvironmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Robert PastorokEcology Group, Integral Consulting, Woodinville, Washington, USA.
Steve F RailsbackLang Railsback & Associates, Arcata, California, USA.
Richard RebarberDepartment of Mathematics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
Pernille ThorbekEnvironmental Safety, Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, United Kingdom.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protection of ecosystem services is increasingly emphasized as a risk-assessment goal, but there are wide gaps between current ecological risk-assessment endpoints and potential effects on services provided by ecosystems. The authors present a framework that links common ecotoxicological endpoints to chemical impacts on populations and communities and the ecosystem services that they provide. This framework builds on considerable advances in mechanistic effects models designed to span multiple levels of biological organization and account for various types of biological interactions and feedbacks. For illustration, the authors introduce 2 case studies that employ well-developed and validated mechanistic effects models: the inSTREAM individual-based model for fish populations and the AQUATOX ecosystem model. They also show how dynamic energy budget theory can provide a common currency for interpreting organism-level toxicity. They suggest that a framework based on mechanistic models that predict impacts on ecosystem services resulting from chemical exposure, combined with economic valuation, can provide a useful approach for informing environmental management. The authors highlight the potential benefits of using this framework as well as the challenges that will need to be addressed in future work. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:845-859. © 2017 SETAC.

Indexed as

EcosystemModels, TheoreticalRisk ManagementAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesCost-Benefit AnalysisEndocrine DisruptorsFishesFresh WaterPesticidesRisk AssessmentWater QualityEndocrine DisruptorsPesticidesEcological production functionEcological risk assessmentEcosystem serviceEnvironmental managementMechanistic effects model

Identifiers

PMID28370293
PMCPMC6147012

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.