Eco-SpaCE: An object-oriented, spatially explicit model to assess the risk of multiple environmental stressors on terrestrial vertebrate populations

Loos, Mark; Ragas, A.M.J.; Plasmeijer, Rinus; Schipper, Aafke M.; Hendriks, A. Jan

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.045

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the environment, living organisms are exposed to a variety of biotic and abiotic stressors that may drastically reduce their longevity and fitness12. These stressors may be anthropogenic ( e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasite-insecticide interactions: a case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil synergy on honeybee

Aufauvre

Biron

Vidau

et al. 2012

Sci Rep

180

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In ecosystems, a variety of biological, chemical and physical stressors may act in combination to induce illness in populations of living organisms. While recent surveys reported that parasite-insecticide interactions can synergistically and negatively affect honeybee survival, the importance of sequence in exposure to stressors has hardly received any attention. In this work, Western honeybees (Apis mellifera) were sequentially or simultaneously infected by the microsporidian parasite Nosema ceranae and chronically exposed to a sublethal dose of the insecticide fipronil, respectively chosen as biological and chemical stressors. Interestingly, every combination tested led to a synergistic effect on honeybee survival, with the most significant impacts when stressors were applied at the emergence of honeybees. Our study presents significant outcomes on beekeeping management but also points out the potential risks incurred by any living organism frequently exposed to both pathogens and insecticides in their habitat.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasite-insecticide interactions: a case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil synergy on honeybee

Aufauvre

Biron

Vidau

et al. 2012

Sci Rep

180

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spatial variability within habitats has also been studied as part of ecological risk assessment [22][23][24]. These few studies argue against a general rule that species and food chains in one habitat are more vulnerable than in another.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological vulnerability in wildlife: Application of a species‐ranking method to food chains and habitats

Lange

Lahr

Pol

et al. 2010

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature development in The Netherlands is often planned on contaminated soils or sediments. This contamination may present a risk for wildlife species desired at those nature development sites and must be assessed by specific risk assessment methods. In a previous study, we developed a method to predict ecological vulnerability in wildlife species by using autecological data and expert judgment; in the current study, this method is further extended to assess ecological vulnerability of food chains and terrestrial and aquatic habitats typical for The Netherlands. The method is applied to six chemicals: Cd, Cu, Zn, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, chlorpyrifos, and ivermectin. The results indicate that species in different food chains differ in vulnerability, with earthworm-based food chains the most vulnerable. Within and between food chains, vulnerability varied with habitat, particularly at low trophic levels. The concept of habitat vulnerability was applied to a case study of four different habitat types in floodplains contaminated with cadmium and zinc along the river Dommel, The Netherlands. The alder floodplain forest habitat contained the most vulnerable species. The differences among habitats were significant for Cd. We further conclude that the method has good potential for application in mapping of habitat vulnerability.

show abstract

“…Characterising the individual traits is critical for these determine the higher level effects and hence predictions at the population, community Mean: average stress scenario simulation; Minimum Contamination: minimum contamination stress simulation; Maximum Contamination: maximum contamination stress simulation; Minimum Flooding: minimum flooding stress simulation; Maximum Flooding: maximum flooding stress simulation; Minimum Ecological: minimum starvation and predation stress simulation; Maximum Ecological: maximum starvation and predation stress simulation. Source: Loos et al (2010) with permission from Elsevier Figure 11: Relative contribution of starvation, ageing (maximum age), cadmium contamination (intoxication), flooding and predation to the mortality of four European mammals under seven different environmental stress scenarios and broader biodiversity scales. An example representation of this approach to ERA is illustrated in Figure 10.…”

Section: Ecological Modelling To Assess Species Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EFSA performs environmental risk assessment (ERA) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives, and for invasive alien species that are harmful to plant health. This ERA focusses primarily on the use or spread of such potential stressors in an agricultural context, but also considers the impact on the wider environment. It is important to realise that the above potential stressors in most cases contribute a minor proportion of the total integrated pressure that ecosystems experience. The World Wildlife Fund listed the relative attribution of threats contributing to the declines in animal populations as follows: 37% from exploitation (fishing, hunting, etc.), 31% habitat degradation and change, 13% from habitat loss, 7% from climate change, and only 5% from invasive species, 4% from pollution and 2% from disease. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the extent of coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes that fall under the remit of EFSA. The legal basis and the relevant ecological and biological features used to classify a species as endangered are investigated. The characteristics that determine vulnerability of endangered species are reviewed. Whether endangered species are more at risk from exposure to potential stressors than other nontarget species is discussed, but specific protection goals for endangered species are not given. Due to a lack of effect and exposure data for the vast majority of endangered species, the reliability of using data from other species is a key issue for their ERA. This issue and other uncertainties are discussed when reviewing the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes. Potential tools, such as population and landscape modelling and trait‐based approaches, for extending the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes, are explored and reported.

show abstract

Eco-SpaCE: An object-oriented, spatially explicit model to assess the risk of multiple environmental stressors on terrestrial vertebrate populations

Cited by 29 publications

References 56 publications

Parasite-insecticide interactions: a case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil synergy on honeybee

Parasite-insecticide interactions: a case study of Nosema ceranae and fipronil synergy on honeybee

Ecological vulnerability in wildlife: Application of a species‐ranking method to food chains and habitats

Coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About