What is meant by "95% of species"? an argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing

B.J. Kefford, C.G. Palmer, S. Jooste, M.S.J. Warne, D. Nugegoda

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    55 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    It is increasingly common for water quality guidelines and risk assessments to consider the proportion of species at risk from a particular toxicant, based on the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) for that toxicant. There is a premise that the sensitivity data from species included in the SSD are sufficient to predict the effect on species for which there are no data. We discuss and review assumptions that follow this premise and find that for most toxicant SSDs include too few species, and that component species are biased toward particular taxonomic groups, common species and species from North America and western Europe. Consequently, protecting a given percentage, for example, 95%, of species in an SSD will likely protect more or less than 95% of species in nature, by an unknown amount. For the assumptions of SSDs to be better met, there is a need for tolerance data on more species, from more taxonomic and other groups, including rare species and those from widespread localities. In order to achieve this, we argue for the inclusion of rapid tests, which we define as toxicity tests designed to require less effort to conduct, relative to traditional tests, so sensitivity can be quickly and approximately determine in many species. Their use will allow for more species, more representative of natural communities, to be tested and therefore allow the construction of less biased SSDs and thus more accurate guidelines and assessments of risk.
    Original languageUndefined
    Pages (from-to)1025-1046
    Number of pages22
    JournalHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment
    Volume11
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Cite this

    Kefford, B.J. ; Palmer, C.G. ; Jooste, S. ; Warne, M.S.J. ; Nugegoda, D. / What is meant by "95% of species"? an argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing. In: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2005 ; Vol. 11, No. 5. pp. 1025-1046.
    @article{1d6c79593d7e4e559c36fce960181393,
    title = "What is meant by {"}95{\%} of species{"}? an argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing",
    abstract = "It is increasingly common for water quality guidelines and risk assessments to consider the proportion of species at risk from a particular toxicant, based on the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) for that toxicant. There is a premise that the sensitivity data from species included in the SSD are sufficient to predict the effect on species for which there are no data. We discuss and review assumptions that follow this premise and find that for most toxicant SSDs include too few species, and that component species are biased toward particular taxonomic groups, common species and species from North America and western Europe. Consequently, protecting a given percentage, for example, 95{\%}, of species in an SSD will likely protect more or less than 95{\%} of species in nature, by an unknown amount. For the assumptions of SSDs to be better met, there is a need for tolerance data on more species, from more taxonomic and other groups, including rare species and those from widespread localities. In order to achieve this, we argue for the inclusion of rapid tests, which we define as toxicity tests designed to require less effort to conduct, relative to traditional tests, so sensitivity can be quickly and approximately determine in many species. Their use will allow for more species, more representative of natural communities, to be tested and therefore allow the construction of less biased SSDs and thus more accurate guidelines and assessments of risk.",
    author = "B.J. Kefford and C.G. Palmer and S. Jooste and M.S.J. Warne and D. Nugegoda",
    note = "cited By 50",
    year = "2005",
    doi = "10.1080/10807030500257770",
    language = "Undefined",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "1025--1046",
    journal = "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)",
    issn = "1080-7039",
    publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
    number = "5",

    }

    What is meant by "95% of species"? an argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing. / Kefford, B.J.; Palmer, C.G.; Jooste, S.; Warne, M.S.J.; Nugegoda, D.

    In: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Vol. 11, No. 5, 2005, p. 1025-1046.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - What is meant by "95% of species"? an argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing

    AU - Kefford, B.J.

    AU - Palmer, C.G.

    AU - Jooste, S.

    AU - Warne, M.S.J.

    AU - Nugegoda, D.

    N1 - cited By 50

    PY - 2005

    Y1 - 2005

    N2 - It is increasingly common for water quality guidelines and risk assessments to consider the proportion of species at risk from a particular toxicant, based on the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) for that toxicant. There is a premise that the sensitivity data from species included in the SSD are sufficient to predict the effect on species for which there are no data. We discuss and review assumptions that follow this premise and find that for most toxicant SSDs include too few species, and that component species are biased toward particular taxonomic groups, common species and species from North America and western Europe. Consequently, protecting a given percentage, for example, 95%, of species in an SSD will likely protect more or less than 95% of species in nature, by an unknown amount. For the assumptions of SSDs to be better met, there is a need for tolerance data on more species, from more taxonomic and other groups, including rare species and those from widespread localities. In order to achieve this, we argue for the inclusion of rapid tests, which we define as toxicity tests designed to require less effort to conduct, relative to traditional tests, so sensitivity can be quickly and approximately determine in many species. Their use will allow for more species, more representative of natural communities, to be tested and therefore allow the construction of less biased SSDs and thus more accurate guidelines and assessments of risk.

    AB - It is increasingly common for water quality guidelines and risk assessments to consider the proportion of species at risk from a particular toxicant, based on the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) for that toxicant. There is a premise that the sensitivity data from species included in the SSD are sufficient to predict the effect on species for which there are no data. We discuss and review assumptions that follow this premise and find that for most toxicant SSDs include too few species, and that component species are biased toward particular taxonomic groups, common species and species from North America and western Europe. Consequently, protecting a given percentage, for example, 95%, of species in an SSD will likely protect more or less than 95% of species in nature, by an unknown amount. For the assumptions of SSDs to be better met, there is a need for tolerance data on more species, from more taxonomic and other groups, including rare species and those from widespread localities. In order to achieve this, we argue for the inclusion of rapid tests, which we define as toxicity tests designed to require less effort to conduct, relative to traditional tests, so sensitivity can be quickly and approximately determine in many species. Their use will allow for more species, more representative of natural communities, to be tested and therefore allow the construction of less biased SSDs and thus more accurate guidelines and assessments of risk.

    U2 - 10.1080/10807030500257770

    DO - 10.1080/10807030500257770

    M3 - Article

    VL - 11

    SP - 1025

    EP - 1046

    JO - Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

    JF - Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

    SN - 1080-7039

    IS - 5

    ER -