TY - JOUR
T1 - Selecting species for marine assessment of radionuclides around amchitka
T2 - Planning for diverse goals and interests
AU - Burger, Joanna
AU - Gochfeld, Michael
AU - Jewett, Stephen
N1 - Funding Information:
Several key people were involved throughout the Amchitka assessment project, and we especially thank them now: C. W. Powers, D. Kosson, D. Volz, L. Duffy, D. Barnes, and B. Friedlander. We also thank the people who contributed to the development of the Science Plan, including Monica Sanchez, Runore Wycoff, and Peter Sanders (Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada), Jenny Chapman (Desert Research Institute), Anne Morkill (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), Robert Patrick (Aleutian/Pribilof Island Association), Ron King, David Rogers, John Halverson, and Doug Dasher (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), and the people of the villages of Unalaska, Nikolski, and Atka in the Aleutians. Over the years our thinking about the characterization of contaminated sites has been influenced by B. D. Goldstein, J. Clark, and A. Upton. This research was conducted under appropriate collecting permits issued to the Rutgers University, and animal care protocols (Rutgers University). This research was funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through the Department of Energy (AI # DE-FC01– 95EW55084, DE-FG 26–00NT 40938), NIEHS (ESO 5022), Wildlife Trust, Hatch Funds, and EOHSI. The results, conclusions and interpretations reported herein are the sole responsibility of the authors, and should not in any way be interpreted as representing the views of the funding agency.
PY - 2006/12
Y1 - 2006/12
N2 - Considerable attention has been devoted to selecting bioindicator species as part of monitoring programs for exposure and effects from contaminants in the environment. Yet the rationale for selection of bioindicators is often literature-based, rather than developed with a firm site-specific base of data on contaminant levels in a diverse range of organisms at different trophic levels in the same ecosystem. We suggest that this latter step is an important phase in the environmental assessment process that is often missing. In this paper we address the problem of how to select a wide range of species representing different trophic levels that serve as a basis for selecting a few species suitable as bioindicators. We illustrate this with our assessment of radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. We propose a multi-stage process for arriving at the list of available species that includes review of literature, review by experts experienced in the area, review by interested and affected parties, selection of trophic levels or groups for analysis, arraying of possible species, and selection of species within each trophic level group for sample collection. We first had to identify all likely species, then narrow our focus to those we could collect and analyze. In all cases, review includes suggestions for possible target species with justifications. While this method increases the up-front costs of developing bioindicators for an ecosystem, it has the advantage of providing information for selection of species that will be most informative in the long run, including those that are the best bioaccumulators, thus providing the earliest warning of any potential environmental consequences. Further, the recognition that a range of stakeholder's needs and interests should be included increases the utility for public-policy makers, and the potential for continued usage to establish long-term trends.
AB - Considerable attention has been devoted to selecting bioindicator species as part of monitoring programs for exposure and effects from contaminants in the environment. Yet the rationale for selection of bioindicators is often literature-based, rather than developed with a firm site-specific base of data on contaminant levels in a diverse range of organisms at different trophic levels in the same ecosystem. We suggest that this latter step is an important phase in the environmental assessment process that is often missing. In this paper we address the problem of how to select a wide range of species representing different trophic levels that serve as a basis for selecting a few species suitable as bioindicators. We illustrate this with our assessment of radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. We propose a multi-stage process for arriving at the list of available species that includes review of literature, review by experts experienced in the area, review by interested and affected parties, selection of trophic levels or groups for analysis, arraying of possible species, and selection of species within each trophic level group for sample collection. We first had to identify all likely species, then narrow our focus to those we could collect and analyze. In all cases, review includes suggestions for possible target species with justifications. While this method increases the up-front costs of developing bioindicators for an ecosystem, it has the advantage of providing information for selection of species that will be most informative in the long run, including those that are the best bioaccumulators, thus providing the earliest warning of any potential environmental consequences. Further, the recognition that a range of stakeholder's needs and interests should be included increases the utility for public-policy makers, and the potential for continued usage to establish long-term trends.
KW - Assessment
KW - Bioindicators
KW - Biological diversity
KW - Marine
KW - Radionuclides
KW - Regulators
KW - Stakeholder
KW - Trophic groups
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33751536816&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33751536816&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10661-006-9203-z
DO - 10.1007/s10661-006-9203-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 17106783
AN - SCOPUS:33751536816
SN - 0167-6369
VL - 123
SP - 371
EP - 391
JO - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
JF - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
IS - 1-3
ER -