Get access

Summary and recommendations from a SETAC pellston workshop on in situ measures of ecological effects

Authors

  • Donald J Baird,

    Corresponding author
    1. National Water Research Institute (Environment Canada) at Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 45111, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
    • National Water Research Institute (Environment Canada) at Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 45111, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • G. Allen Burton,

    1. Wright State University, Institute for Environmental Quality, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, Ohio 45435, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Joseph M Culp,

    1. National Water Research Institute (Environment Canada) at Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 45111, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lorraine Maltby

    1. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

The objective of a SETAC Pellston Workshop held in Portland, Oregon, USA, in November 2004 was to evaluate the use of field-based biological effects and exposure techniques in the hazard and risk assessment of aquatic ecosystems, thereby improving the accuracy and relevance of the decision-making process. This objective was addressed by keynote presentations outlining the state of the science and providing case studies, followed by work-group discussions focusing on 4 main areas: 1) Improving stressor-effect diagnostic capability in the assessment process; 2) maximizing efficiency, quality assurance and quality control, and broad-scale applicability of in situ field bioassays and experimental approaches; 3) determining the ecological relevance and consequences of individual and food chain-based effect measures; and 4) incorporating results from field-based effect methods into a weight-of-evidence decision-making process. Major outcomes from group discussions are highlighted, and future priorities for research in this area are recommended.

Ancillary