Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer
{"title":"全欧洲大型无脊椎动物群对铜和吡虫啉敏感性的空间趋势","authors":"Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer","doi":"10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC<sub>5</sub>) in each assemblage. Predicted <span>\\(H{C}_{5}\\)</span> values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median <span>\\(H{C}_{5}\\)</span> values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":546,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sciences Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Europe-wide spatial trends in copper and imidacloprid sensitivity of macroinvertebrate assemblages\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan F. Jupke, Thomas Sinclair, Lorraine Maltby, Jukka Aroviita, Libuše Barešová, Núria Bonada, Emília Mišíková Elexová, M. Teresa Ferreira, Maria Lazaridou, Margita Lešťáková, Piotr Panek, Petr Pařil, Edwin T. H. M. Peeters, Marek Polášek, Leonard Sandin, Dénes Schmera, Michal Straka, Ralf B. Schäfer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC<sub>5</sub>) in each assemblage. Predicted <span>\\\\(H{C}_{5}\\\\)</span> values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median <span>\\\\(H{C}_{5}\\\\)</span> values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Sciences Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sciences Europe","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00944-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Europe-wide spatial trends in copper and imidacloprid sensitivity of macroinvertebrate assemblages
Exposure to synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, affects freshwater communities at broad spatial scales. This risk is commonly managed in a prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA). Relying on generic methods, a few standard test organisms, and safety factors to account for uncertainty, ERA determines concentrations that are assumed to pose low risks to ecosystems. Currently, this procedure neglects potential variation in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types and recommends a single low-risk concentration for each compound. Whether systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity among ecosystem types exist or their size, are currently unknown. Elucidating spatial patterns in sensitivity to chemicals could therefore enhance ERA precision and narrow a fundamental knowledge gap in ecology, the Hutchinsonian shortfall. We analyzed whether taxonomic turnover between field-sampled macroinvertebrate assemblages of different broad river types across Europe results in systematic differences in assemblage sensitivity to copper and imidacloprid. We used an extensive database of macroinvertebrate assemblage compositions throughout Europe and employed a hierarchical species sensitivity distribution model to predict the concentration that would be harmful to 5% of taxa (HC5) in each assemblage. Predicted \(H{C}_{5}\) values varied over several orders of magnitude. However, variation within the 95% highest density intervals remained within one order of magnitude. Differences between the river types were minor for imidacloprid and only slightly higher for copper. The largest difference between river-type-specific median \(H{C}_{5}\) values was a factor of 3.1. This level of variation is below the assessment factors recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and therefore would be captured in the current ERA for plant protection products. We conclude that the differences in taxonomic composition between broad river types translate into relatively small differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage sensitivity toward the evaluated chemicals at the European scale. However, systematic differences in bioavailability and multi-stressor context were not evaluated and might exacerbate the differences in the ecological effects of chemicals among broad river types in real-world ecosystems.
期刊介绍:
ESEU is an international journal, focusing primarily on Europe, with a broad scope covering all aspects of environmental sciences, including the main topic regulation.
ESEU will discuss the entanglement between environmental sciences and regulation because, in recent years, there have been misunderstandings and even disagreement between stakeholders in these two areas. ESEU will help to improve the comprehension of issues between environmental sciences and regulation.
ESEU will be an outlet from the German-speaking (DACH) countries to Europe and an inlet from Europe to the DACH countries regarding environmental sciences and regulation.
Moreover, ESEU will facilitate the exchange of ideas and interaction between Europe and the DACH countries regarding environmental regulatory issues.
Although Europe is at the center of ESEU, the journal will not exclude the rest of the world, because regulatory issues pertaining to environmental sciences can be fully seen only from a global perspective.