Estimating pesticide effects on fecundity rates of wild birds using current laboratory reproduction tests

被引:14
作者
Bennett, Richard S. [1 ]
Etterson, Matthew A. [1 ]
机构
[1] US EPA, Off Res & Dev, Natl Hlth & Environm Effects Res Lab, Duluth, MN 55804 USA
来源
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT | 2006年 / 12卷 / 04期
关键词
avian reproduction; population model; fecundity; lab-to-field extrapolation; pesticides;
D O I
10.1080/10807030500531489
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Regulatory agencies have used laboratory toxicity tests for decades to assess potential risks of pesticide use to wildlife, but questions remain about the ecological significance of test results. Population models may provide a valuable tool for projecting the consequences of pesticide use if information exists on the relationship between exposure and effects on survival and fecundity rates. We review issues of using avian reproduction test results for estimating changes in fecundity rates of wild birds. The avian reproduction test originated from studies focused on eggshell quality and embryotoxic effects of bioaccumulating, organochlorine pesticides. Current pesticides exhibit other potential reproductive effects that are not measured or that are poorly characterized. Because several experimental design features of the laboratory test may lead to overestimation or underestimation of the magnitude of risk of a particular pesticide to wild birds, determination of the magnitude of effects on fecundity cannot be based solely on the results of standardized laboratory tests. Quantifying the overall impact of pesticides on avian fecundity rates for use in population modeling will require additional information from modified laboratory tests that address specific questions, field monitoring or experimental field studies, and simulation models of avian productivity.
引用
收藏
页码:762 / 781
页数:20
相关论文
共 91 条
[21]   A comparison of bird populations on organic and conventional farm systems in southern Britain [J].
Chamberlain, DE ;
Wilson, JD ;
Fuller, RJ .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1999, 88 (03) :307-320
[22]  
DEWEESE LR, 1979, RESPONSE BREEDING BI
[23]  
DRIVER CJ, 1991, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V10, P21, DOI [10.1897/1552-8618(1991)10[21:ROUATR]2.0.CO
[24]  
2, 10.1002/etc.5620100104]
[25]  
*ECOFRAM, 1999, UNPUB ECOFRAM TERR D
[26]   Lines of evidence in wildlife risk assessments [J].
Fairbrother, A .
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2003, 9 (06) :1475-1491
[27]  
FAIRBROTHER A, 1988, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V7, P499, DOI 10.1897/1552-8618(1988)7[499:CIMHAB]2.0.CO
[28]  
2
[29]  
FLUETSCH KM, 1994, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V13, P1651, DOI [10.1897/1552-8618(1994)13[1651:ANSADI]2.0.CO
[30]  
2, 10.1002/etc.5620131015]