Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39211534›Full record

ArticleEcologies2022

Realism, Conservatism, and Tiered Ecological Risk Assessment.

Matthew A Etterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Matthew A EttersonUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, MN 55804, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9279-6258

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research has provided valuable momentum for the development and use of population models for ecological risk assessment (ERA). In general, ERA proceeds along a tiered strategy, with conservative assumptions deployed at lower tiers that are relaxed at higher tiers with ever more realistic models. As the tier increases, so do the levels of time and effort required by the assessor. When faced with many stressors, species, and habitats, risk assessors need to find efficiencies. Conservative lower-tier approaches are well established, but higher-tier models often prioritize accuracy, and conservative approaches are relatively unexplored at higher tiers. A principle of efficiency for ecological modeling for population-level ecological risk assessment is articulated and evaluated against a conceptual model and an existing set of avian models for chemical risk assessment. Here, four published avian models are reviewed in increasing order of realism (risk quotient → Markov chain nest productivity model → endogenous lifecycle model → spatially explicit population model). Models are compared in a pairwise fashion according to increasing realism and evaluated as to whether conservatism increases or decreases with each step. The principle of efficiency is shown to be a challenging ideal, though some cause for optimism is identified. Strategies are suggested for studying efficiency in tiered ecological model deployment.

Indexed as

endogenous lifecycle modelMCnestPopGUIDEpopulation modelrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID39211534
PMCPMC11360424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.