Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria Defining a “Healthy” Ecosystem

Ramade, François

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-79464-3_3

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the threats to health in this modern milieu, understanding and assessing the links between anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems, human health, and ecosystem structure and functioning are vitally important (Koren and Crawford-Brown 2004). Although currently “there is no simple solution to a quantitative and quick assessment of ecosystem health” (Ramade 1995), we contend that human disease surveillance (particularly notification systems for infectious disease) at local, regional, and global levels is often a readily available and accurately recorded bioindicator that could be used for such purposes. Monitoring of disease events is more widespread, accurate, and subject to ongoing quality assurance than many of the “indicators of ecosystem health” that have been proposed in the past (Spiegel and Yassi 1997), which are often difficult to routinely measure and which require intensive investigation and complex analysis (Rapport et al 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Human Disease Outbreaks as a Guide to Multilevel Ecosystem Interventions

Cook

Jardine²,

Weinstein³

2004

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human health often depends on environmental variables and is generally subject to widespread and comprehensive surveillance. Compared with other available measures of ecosystem health, human disease incidence may be one of the most useful and practical bioindicators for the often elusive gauge of ecologic well-being. We argue that many subtle ecosystem disruptions are often identified only as a result of detailed epidemiologic investigations after an anomalous increase in human disease incidence detected by routine surveillance mechanisms. Incidence rates for vector-mediated diseases (e.g., arboviral illnesses) and direct zoonoses (e.g., hantaviruses) are particularly appropriate as bioindicators to identify underlying ecosystem disturbances. Outbreak data not only have the potential to act as a pivotal warning system for ecosystem disruption, but may also be used to identify interventions for the preservation of ecologic health. With this approach, appropriate ecologically based strategies for remediation can be introduced at an earlier stage than would be possible based solely on environmental monitoring, thereby reducing the level of “ecosystem distress” as well as resultant disease burden in humans. This concept is discussed using local, regional, and global examples, thereby introducing the concept of multilevel ecosystem interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Human Disease Outbreaks as a Guide to Multilevel Ecosystem Interventions

Cook

Jardine²,

Weinstein³

2004

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data requirements for ecological risk analyses of riverine landscape dynamics are large (cf. Ramade, 1995; Lowell et al ., 2000). Data were needed, for example, on the relationships between riverine landscape dynamics and key ecosystem attributes (Table 1), and on the thresholds for various anthropogenic disturbances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment

Leuven

Poudevigne

2002

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The aim of ecological risk assessments is to evaluate the likelihood that ecosystems are adversely affected by human‐induced disturbance that brings the ecosystem into a new dynamic equilibrium with a simpler structure and lower potential energy. The risk probability depends on the threshold capacity of the system (resistance) and on the capacity of the system to return to a state of equilibrium (resilience). 2. There are two complementary approaches to assessing ecological risks of riverine landscape dynamics. The reductionist approach aims at identifying risk to the ecosystem on the basis of accumulated data on simple stressor–effect relationships. The holistic approach aims at taking the whole ecosystem performance into account, which implies meso‐scale analysis. 3. Landscape patterns and their dynamics represent the physical framework of processes determining the ecosystem's equilibrium. Assessing risks of landscape dynamics to riverine ecosystems implies addressing complex interactions of system components (e.g. population dynamics and biogeochemical cycles) occurring at multiple scales of space and time. 4. One of the most important steps in ecological risk assessment is to establish clear assessment endpoints (e.g. vital ecosystem and landscape attributes). Their formulation must recognise that riverine ecosystems are dynamic, structurally complex and composed of both deterministic and stochastic components. 5. Remote sensing (geo)statistics and geographical information systems are primary tools for quantifying spatial and temporal components of riverine ecosystem and landscape attributes. 6. The difficulty to experiment at the riverine landscape level means that ecological risk management is heavily dependent on models. Current models are targeted towards simulating ecological risk at levels ranging from single species to habitats, food webs and meta‐populations to ecosystems and entire riverine landscapes, with some including socio‐economic considerations.

show abstract

“…Assessing cumulative impacts of multiple stressors from both structural and functional standpoints needs further basic studies (cf. Ramade [34]). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%