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

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research

Advanced Search


My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Palmer, Carolyn en_US
dc.contributor.author Jooste, S en_US
dc.contributor.author Warne, Michael en_US
dc.contributor.author Nugegoda, Dayanthi en_US
dc.contributor.author Kefford, Ben en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2011-02-07T06:20:40Z
dc.date.available 2011-02-07T06:20:40Z
dc.date.issued 2005 en_US
dc.identifier 2009006156 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Kefford Benjamin et al. 2005, 'What is meant by "95% of species"? An argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing', Taylor & Francis Inc, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1025-1046. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1080-7039 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1UNSUBMIT en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/13315
dc.description.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. en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher Taylor & Francis Inc en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807030500257770 en_US
dc.title What is meant by "95% of species"? An argument for the inclusion of rapid tolerance testing en_US
dc.parent Human and Ecological Risk Assessment en_US
dc.journal.volume 11 en_US
dc.journal.number 5 en_US
dc.publocation Philadelphia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 1025 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 1046 en_US
dc.cauo.name SCI.Faculty of Science en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 060200 en_US
dc.personcode 109859 en_US
dc.personcode 995263 en_US
dc.personcode 0000031011 en_US
dc.personcode 0000016598 en_US
dc.personcode 034710 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Ecology en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity ISI:000232495000006 en_US
dc.description.keywords species sensitivity distributions; tolerance testing; assumptions; water quality guidelines development en_US
dc.staffid 034710 en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record